Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:54:18 -0400 | | From | Brice Goglin <> | | Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API |
| |
Chase Venters wrote: > At least some of us feel like stable module APIs should be explicitly > discouraged, because we don't want to offer comfort for code that > refuses to live in the tree (since getting said code into the tree is > often a goal). > > I'm curious now too - can you name some non-GPL non-proprietary > modules we should be concerned about? I'd think most of the possible > examples (not sure what they are) would be better off dual-licensed > (one license being GPL) and in-kernel.
What about GPL modules that don't want to get merged ? I don't know any such module that could use this API. But at least there are some webcam drivers that don't seem to want to be merged (I don't know why).
I agree with making life hard for proprietary modules. I agree that maintaining a stable API is hard. But I don't see the actual point of discouraging modules to stay out of tree.
Brice
- 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/
|  |