| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4702BCD0.4010202@dusted.dk> Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:49:04 +0200 From: Jimmy <lists@...ted.dk> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Point of gpl-only modules (flame) I know I'll be getting hell for this, I must be a masochist. Anyway, I've been trying to figure out what purpose the gpl-only code serves. What good comes out of disabling people from probing modules that do not have a gpl-compatible license? Of cause, I would love to see more hardware manufactures release either full specs, or GPL'd drivers, and I'm sure it will happen, in time. But until then, why are people wasting time writing code to inhibit those who do not agree with them on licensing? It seems pretty childish to try and force some license on people, imagine trying to install firefox on Windows Vista, an error-dialog box appears: "This application has been denied access to the Windows API as its license are compatible with the Microsoft Philosophy" ? Now, i don't want to waste clock cycles on executing code that serves no purpose but restraining me from using my $1500 gfx card as intended, so will me removing that crap from the source result in somebody trying to obfuscate it to a point where neither of us know what is what? Also, how about a list of PROS, explain to me whats so cool about it? - Jimmy - 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