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, 8 Nov 2001 08:15:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 08:14:45 -0500 Received: from [62.14.235.6] ([62.14.235.6]:19204 "HELO [62.14.235.6]") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 08:14:43 -0500 From: "Drizzt Do'Urden" To: "Alan Cox" , Cc: "LLX" , Subject: RE: Module Licensing? Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 14:19:08 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Yes, Alan, use these tecnique is a mess, and nobody are going to include a mess like this in a standar kernel. But someone could use this kind of tricks to include "binary only mess" in the kernel and no break the GPL ... I also think about a dinamic patching kernel from user space from /dev/kmem, another mess but, the limits in "what is dinamic linking", is not clear in the GPL for me, and you can use these kind of tricks. I can understand the problems with reports to linux-kernel with binary only drivers, and why is important that tainted kernel. People in this list don't have to do the work that must be done for a the company that made the driver who knows what the binary driver do. But I can understand less the GPLONLY_ option (and I have read another mail from you where you comment that there are people that doesn't want that their code are called from "binary only modules"), because there are tricks that you can use to jump over the GPL and not put "a glue GPL module" (like I have read in the thread about this question). I only thinking about all this topic. I prefer the source for the drivers (simple, easy debugging) , but is better a binary driver (but the support must be done by the company that make that driver,of course), that no driver at all :(, but these is only my opinion. Saludos Drizzt -----Mensaje original----- De: Alan Cox [mailto:alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk] Enviado el: jueves, 08 de noviembre de 2001 13:41 Para: drizzt.dourden@iname.com CC: LLX; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Asunto: Re: Module Licensing? > (well, I dosn't remember the exact sintax of pointer to funtioncs but .= > =2E. ) > > You can put the binary driver like "microcode", and GPL Nope. The only cases we have microcode like that in the kernel is downloaded firmware for devices. The same stuff you'd have been finding in the boot rom instead 12 months ago before the price squeezes reached ripped out any flash component and doing software download. Richard Stallman doesn't like that either, but since he currently runs an OS loaded by and using a binary only BIOS I don't have any direct sympathies right now