Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API

Chase Venters
2006-06-13T22:00:57Z

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:

> Daniel,
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>>
>> This has the makings of a nice stable internal kernel api. Why do we want
>> to provide this nice stable internal api to proprietary modules?
>
> Why not? Not all non-GPL modules are proprietary. Do we lose
> something by making a nice stable api available to non-derived
> modules?

Look out for that word (stable). Judging from history (and sanity),
arguing /in favor of/ any kind of stable module API is asking for it.

At least some of us feel like stable module APIs should be explicitly
discouraged, because we don't want to offer comfort for code
that refuses to live in the tree (since getting said code into the tree is
often a goal).

I'm curious now too - can you name some non-GPL non-proprietary modules we
should be concerned about? I'd think most of the possible examples (not
sure what they are) would be better off dual-licensed (one license
being GPL) and in-kernel.

Thanks,
Chase