Date:   Tue, 22 Jan 2019 10:17:40 +0100
From:   Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it>
To:     Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc:process: remove note from 'stable api nonsense'

On Monday, January 21, 2019 9:37:08 AM CET Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 09:14:00AM +0100, Federico Vaga wrote:
> > On Monday, January 21, 2019 2:43:38 AM CET Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > > On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 22:58:04 +0100
> > > 
> > > Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it> wrote:
> > > > The link referred by the note can't be retrieved: this patch just
> > > > remove that old note.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it>
> > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > >  Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst | 3 +--
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst
> > > > b/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst index
> > > > 24f5aeecee91..57d95a49c096 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst
> > > > @@ -171,8 +171,7 @@ is also a rough job.
> > > > 
> > > >  Simple, get your kernel driver into the main kernel tree (remember we
> > > >  are talking about GPL released drivers here, if your code doesn't
> > > >  fall
> > > > 
> > > > -under this category, good luck, you are on your own here, you leech
> > > > -<insert link to leech comment from Andrew and Linus here>.)  If your
> > > > +under this category, good luck, you are on your own here, you leech).
> > > >  If
> > > > your>
> > > > 
> > > >  driver is in the tree, and a kernel interface changes, it will be
> > > >  fixed
> > > >  up by the person who did the kernel change in the first place.  This
> > > >  ensures that your driver is always buildable, and works over time,
> > > >  with
> > > 
> > > I've applied this.  I do wonder if the "you leech" should maybe come out
> > > too, though.  I don't think that parasitic worms are a protected class
> > > under the CoC, but they might still suffer emotionally from being
> > > compared to the purveyors of proprietary modules...
> > 
> > I agree, do you want me to change the patch?
> 
> I would leave it as-is for now please.  When this was written, there was
> a lot of discussion about closed source modules, and how the companies
> that created them were leeches on our development community.  No one
> disagreed with that statement, and a number of companies privately
> agreed with us.
> 
> That still has not changed.
> 
> So I would like to see this remain.

I agree on the message, but I disagree on the usage of "you leech".

My 2 Cents

I do not like political correctness statements, but in this case the document 
is talking to other developers - who typically do not take decisions about 
license - and comparing them to a leech: isn't it too much?


Alternatives without direct comparison to leech.


Here, I just played with punctuation to create some emphasis around "You are 
on your own here".
-----8<-----
Simple, get your kernel driver into the main kernel tree. Remember we are 
talking about GPL released drivers here, if your code doesn’t fall under this 
category, good luck. You are on your own here.
-----8<-----

And here I just made the reference indirect
-----8<-----
(remember we are talking about GPL released drivers here, if your code doesn’t 
fall under this category, good luck, you are on your own here, leeching has 
its negative sides)
-----8<-----


I will not insist more, it is just a minor discussion about the rights of a 
poor worm :)

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h


-- 
Federico Vaga
http://www.federicovaga.it/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists