From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 04:29:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 04:29:09 -0400 Received: from tangens.hometree.net ([212.34.181.34]:41344 "EHLO mail.hometree.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 04:29:04 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: forge.intermeta.de!not-for-mail From: "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" Newsgroups: hometree.linux.kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] sockreg2.4.5-05 inet[6]_create() register/unregister table Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 08:29:02 +0000 (UTC) Organization: INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH Message-ID: <9fq2ce$gkb$1@forge.intermeta.de> In-Reply-To: <9fnjh0$d1c$1@forge.intermeta.de> Reply-To: hps@intermeta.de NNTP-Posting-Host: forge.intermeta.de X-Trace: tangens.hometree.net 991988942 17629 212.34.181.4 (8 Jun 2001 08:29:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@intermeta.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 08:29:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Copyright: (C) 1996-2001 Henning Schmiedehausen X-No-Archive: yes X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox writes: >> And this is legal according to the "Kernel GPL, Linus Torvalds edition >> (TM)" which says "any loadable module can be binary only". Not "only >> loadable modules which are drivers". It may not be the intention but >> it is the fact. >Linus opinion on this is irrelevant. Neither I nor the FSF nor many others >have released code under anything but the vanilla GPL. By merging such code >Linus lost his ability to vary the license. Ok, this is a new opinion, because it voids the "using the published module ABI is unconditionally ok as stated again and again. >So it comes down to the question of whether the module is linking (which is >about dependancies and requirements) and what the legal scope is. Which >is a matter for lawyers. And this would void DaveMs' argument, that only the "official in Linus' kernel published interface is allowed for binary modules". This would mean, that putting the posted, unofficial patch under GPL into the kernel and then using this interface for a binary module is just the same as using only the official ABI from a lawyers' point of view! This would make DaveMs' position even less understandable, because there would be no difference for a proprietary vendor but keeping the patch out of the kernel makes life harder for people like the original poster that want to test new (open sourced) protocols like SCTP. > Anyone releasing binary only modules does so having made their own > appropriate risk assessment and having talked (I hope) to their > insurers Ugh, this is a sentence we're bound to read out of context on ZDNet and m$.com... =:-( (Linux head developer warns companies to do risk assessment before releasing drivers for Linux... Film at 11.) Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20