From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267791AbUH0VNC (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:13:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267792AbUH0VIH (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:08:07 -0400 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:28361 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267758AbUH0VEs (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:04:48 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:04:17 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Albert Cahalan Cc: Linus Torvalds , Albert Cahalan , linux-kernel mailing list , pmarques@grupopie.com, nemosoft@smcc.demon.nl, linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal Message-ID: <20040827210417.GA4164@kroah.com> References: <1093634283.431.6370.camel@cube> <1093640273.431.6484.camel@cube> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1093640273.431.6484.camel@cube> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 04:57:53PM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote: > On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 15:29, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Can we drop this straw-man discussion now? > > > > We don't do binary hooks in the kernel. Full stop. > > Sure. That has nothing to do with whether it would > be legal or not. It had been implied (by Greg KH) > that you thought Linux-specific proprietary drivers > using hooks are illegal. No, I was trying to state that the hook itself was not allowed. I'll let others argue about the legality of the code using such a hook. Sorry for any confusion about that. greg k-h