From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 11:19:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 11:18:50 -0400 Received: from mpdr0.chicago.il.ameritech.net ([206.141.239.142]:57327 "EHLO mailhost.chi.ameritech.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 11:18:43 -0400 Message-ID: <3B1F9B5A.42BF726D@ameritech.net> Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 10:18:50 -0500 From: watermodem X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.5-ac9 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "David S. Miller" CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sockreg2.4.5-05 inet[6]_create() register/unregister table In-Reply-To: <15134.53268.965680.167845@pizda.ninka.net> <15135.5661.601195.943992@pizda.ninka.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "David S. Miller" wrote: > > George Bonser writes: > > There is, of course, one basic problem with that argument. While you can say > > (and probably rightly so) that such a change would not be included in Linus' > > kernel, I think anyone is allowed to post a patch that might make it > > possible to add protocols as modules. If anyone chooses to use it is each > > individual's decision but you could not prevent ACME from creating a patch > > that allows protocol modules as long as they distributed the patch. Also, I > > know that you are allowed to distribute proprietary modules in binary form > > but are there any restrictions on what function these modules can perform? > > I don't remember seeing any such restrictions. > > People can post whatever patches which do whatever, sure. > But this isn't what matters. > > What matters is the API under which a binary-only module may interface > to the kernel. Linus specifies that only the module exports in his > tree fall into this API. > > As I stated in another email, the allowance of binary-only kernel > modules is a special exception to the licensing of the kernel made by > Linus. The GPL by itself, does not allow this at all. > > Later, > David S. Miller > davem@redhat.com David, What is your real problem with La Monte's Code. I don't buy your more "blessed than thou" argument. It is a typical response one normally sees in large organizations from folk with "empires" to protect. Coming from the "land of warring tribes" firm it is a attitude I have seen often. My response is take a vacation, chill out and reassess. Watermodem > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/