Messages in this thread | | | From | "David S. Miller" <> | Date | Wed, 6 Jun 2001 22:50:21 -0700 (PDT) | Subject | RE: [PATCH] sockreg2.4.5-05 inet[6]_create() register/unregister table |
| |
George Bonser writes: > There is, of course, one basic problem with that argument. While you can say > (and probably rightly so) that such a change would not be included in Linus' > kernel, I think anyone is allowed to post a patch that might make it > possible to add protocols as modules. If anyone chooses to use it is each > individual's decision but you could not prevent ACME from creating a patch > that allows protocol modules as long as they distributed the patch. Also, I > know that you are allowed to distribute proprietary modules in binary form > but are there any restrictions on what function these modules can perform? > I don't remember seeing any such restrictions.
People can post whatever patches which do whatever, sure. But this isn't what matters.
What matters is the API under which a binary-only module may interface to the kernel. Linus specifies that only the module exports in his tree fall into this API.
As I stated in another email, the allowance of binary-only kernel modules is a special exception to the licensing of the kernel made by Linus. The GPL by itself, does not allow this at all.
Later, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |