[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45816F98.9040602@mbligh.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 07:36:56 -0800
From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...igh.org>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...igh.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
"Michael K. Edwards" <medwards.linux@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches
for 2.6.19]
Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 09:39:11PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>
> > The Ubuntu feisty fawn mess was a dangerous warning bell of where we're
> > going. If we don't stand up at some point, and ban binary drivers, we
> > will, I fear, end up with an unsustainable ecosystem for Linux when
> > binary drivers become pervasive. I don't want to see Linux destroyed
> > like that.
>
> Thing is, if kernel.org kernels get patched to disallow binary modules,
> whats to stop Ubuntu (or anyone else) reverting that change in the
> kernels they distribute ? The landscape doesn't really change much,
> given that the majority of Linux end-users are probably running
> distro kernels.
I don't think they'd dare spit in our faces quite that directly.
They think binary modules are permissible because we don't seem to have
consistently stated an intent contradicting that - some individual
developers have, but ultimately Linus hasn't.
I'm not talking about any legal issues to do with derived works,
copyrights or licenses - a clear statement of intent is probably all
it'd take to tip the balance.
M.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists