lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: MOSIX and kernel mods.
Date
Followup to:  <199903010303.UAA22953@wijiji.santafe.edu>
By author: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> I'm not surprised that non-free kernel modules have
> resulted in a big loophole--because the idea is a loophole
> in the first place. They enable a kernel to support more hardware,
> at the cost of not being entirely free anymore.
>
> The whole package becomes "more useful" by implicitly altering the
> goal (a free operating system). Now, if we want to achieve that goal,
> we have a big effort on our hands.
>
> Linus, if he wants to, could begin closing the loophole, by attaching
> more restrictive statements about non-free modules to future kernel
> releases. There are many different ways this could be done, to close
> the loophole either more or less.
>

Well, yes -- it's a tradeoff. At this point, I would estimate that
the enabling factor is more important than making the license air
tight. At the moment, ideological purity is much less important than
market share, IMO -- I believe the real standoff between a usable
Linux or continued Microsoft world domination.

-hpa
--
"Linux is a very complete and sophisticated operating system. There
are, and will be, large numbers of applications available for it."
-- Paul Maritz, Group Vice President for Platforms And Applications,
Microsoft Corporation [Reference at: http://www.kernel.org/~hpa/ms.html]

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site