lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Must modules be GPL'ed?
Date
From
> Kevin Lentin (kevinl@cs.monash.EDU.AU) wrote:
>
> : I think one of the reasons for having modules was the ability for people to
> : supply binary modules.
>
> I am absolutely ignorant in copyrighting-licensing-etc... stuff,
> but I feel that it would be wrong to ALLOW to supply binary modules.
>
> F.e. there exist obsolete binary drivers for riscom/n2 and et cards.
> Good, linux-2.0 will be issued tomorrow, SDL and ETinc. will issue new binary
> drivers in half of year. By this time, linux-2.0 will be obsoleted
> by 2.1, as it occured with 1.2.13 ...

Um, 1.2.13 hasn't been obsoleted (except by 1.2.14), anymore than any
software is obsoleted by the beta of the next release. x.(2n+1)
kernels are development, not stable, kernels.
>
> It would be better not to have them at all.
>
> Alexey Kuznetsov.

--
Buddha Buck bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu
"She was infatuated with their male prostitutes, whose members were
like those of donkeys and whose seed came in floods like that of
stallions." -- Ezekiel 23:20




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:36    [W:0.088 / U:26.496 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site