Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

Robert M. Stockmann
2004-04-28T00:21:19Z

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Tim Hockin wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:59:08AM +0200, Robert M. Stockmann wrote:
> > > What the hell are you going on about? Unnamed structures are a
> > > syntactical construct and have ZILCH to do with runtime.
> >
> > I thought so too, until your semi open-source link kit is linked to that
> > brand-new linux kernel source tree, and at the same time the binary
> > components of your link-kit have become incompatible with that newer kernel.
>
> This is possible with any structure, named or unnamed. It's called an
> ABI, and it's one of the reasons that binary modules suck. It doesn't
> have *anything* to do with unnamed structures. At all. And if you think
> so, show me code.

here's a example :

http://www.promise.com/support/file/driver/1_fasttrak_tx4000_partial_source_1.00.0.19.zip

>
> > > Opaque types have been available FOREVER.
> >
> > sure, but can one qualify that as Open Source?
>
> If used properly (and they are used in Linux, I believe) they can be very
> handy. It's a non-sequiter. no coding technique, no matter how
> incoherent, is incompatible with open source.

Opaque types should be no problem. However the complete definition must reside
somewhere _inside_ the complete source. Opaque types is even a bless, i agree.
It summarizes code to only reflect what is essential, instead of repeating
tedious and long struct types and defines. However if Opaque types are used
inside a partial_source tree, where the complete definition is hidden
inside the binary only closed source parts, then its the complete opposite
of what i would call a bless.

Robert
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net