From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 03:10:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 03:10:37 -0400 Received: from hermine.idb.hist.no ([158.38.50.15]:17423 "HELO hermine.idb.hist.no") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 03:10:29 -0400 Message-ID: <3B25BFEE.E9458B09@idb.hist.no> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:08:30 +0200 From: Helge Hafting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.6-pre1 i686) X-Accept-Language: no, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jacob@chaos2.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sockreg2.4.5-05 inet[6]_create() register/unregistertable In-Reply-To: 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 Jacob Luna Lundberg wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > > "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for > ^^^^^^^^^ > Preferred by whom? The FSF? Richard Stallman? Hackers in general when > they take a vote? Programmers in general? What if the market is full of > VB programmers who prefer VB? What if none of them know assembly? They > might all vote that assembly isn't a preferred form. If they aren't the > ones who count, then who does? Maybe the authors count for more than > other people? If so then it does seem they might like to write binaries > because they're crazy and they think it's fun or something. I think that > the intention of the GPL is clear here but the language is not... The intention _is_ clear indeed. That ought to be all we need really. If it comes to the worst and somneone in court claims that binary is their preferred form for _modification_ - have them demonstrate their way of working to prove it can be done. "Now write 'hello world' in binary. Wow, you managed that! Now add a triple loop to it..." This could be really interesting. Somehow, I believe a driver written directly in binary (without even assembly source) would be easy to reimplement from scratch in C. Because it'd be so small. Helge Hafting