From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263487AbTJLQvW (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:51:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263489AbTJLQvW (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:51:22 -0400 Received: from web13004.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.174.14]:55148 "HELO web13004.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S263487AbTJLQvU (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:51:20 -0400 Message-ID: <20031012165119.17264.qmail@web13004.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:51:19 -0700 (PDT) From: retu Subject: Re: 2.7 thoughts: common well-architected object model To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Jamie Lokier , Kenn Humborg , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200310121644.h9CGiUeb011798@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org nobody says that it belongs into the kernel rather designed by core=kernel folks core-up, that is e.g. not being a derivative of a set of all-encompassing classes developed for an application. I think the issue is serious and brushing it aside as being non-kernel at first will come back biting. What's going on could be described as being cornered. --- Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:04:19 PDT, retu said: > > > What's the solution out of this - a clean, open > object > > model designed by the core folks, extensible and > free > > of licensing issues - and that in the next months. > > > The point that seems to be continually missed is > that although > it may be a *fine* concept for userspace, it doesn't > belong in the > kernel. There's a syscall barrier for multiple > reasons, some technical > and some political/legal. > > If anything, we collectively DON'T want to go there > because a clever lawyer > could argue that doing a "all the way from kernel to > userspace" object-oriented > scheme would make essentially all userspace code a > derived work, since it would > be so tightly entwined with the kernel > implementation (basically, you'd be > subjecting all of userspace to the same "derived > work" limbo that closed-source > kernel modules currently live in). This could > render totally irrelevant this > text from /usr/src/linux/COPYING: > > NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user > programs that use kernel > services by normal system calls - this is merely > considered normal use > of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the > heading of "derived work". > Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the > Free Software > Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers > to (the Linux > kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who > actually wrote it. > > Yes, this would mean that userspace would be GPL'ed > as well, and > you'll never see Oracle on a Linux box again for a > VERY long time.... > > ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com