Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 9 Nov 2000 12:50:00 +0000 (GMT) | From | Paul Jakma <> | Subject | Re: [ANNOUNCE] Generalised Kernel Hooks Interface (GKHI) |
| |
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
> Why? I think the IBM GKHI code would be of tremendous value. It would > make the kernel much more flexible, and for users, much more friendly. > No more patch-and-recompile to add a filesystem or whatever. There's no > reason to hamstring their efforts because of the possibility of binary > modules. The GPL allows that, right?
no gpl definitely does not alow binary modules.
afaik linus allows binary modules in most cases.
> So any developer of binary-only > extensions using the GKHI would not be breaking the license agreement, I > don't think. There's lots of binary modules right now -- VMWare, Aureal > sound card drivers, etc. > > I understand and agree with your desire for full source for everything, > but I disagree that we should artificially limit people's ability to use > Linux to solve their problems. > -
--paulj
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |