Messages in this thread |  | | From | David Lang <> | Date | Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:14:34 -0700 (PDT) | Subject | Re: GPLONLY kernel symbols??? |
| |
but there is a difference between a 'binary only' module and a 'GPL module'
the current process mixes the two up.
David Lang
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:32:25 +0100 > From: Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com> > To: pierre@lineo.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: GPLONLY kernel symbols??? > > > > The real question is whether or not the kernel > > code should be encumbered with legal issues. The > > fact that this or that piece of code is or isn't GPL > > should be in a text file attached to the kernel > > tarball. This sort of thing has no place in the > > code : countless patches with useful code that > > should live in userland have been (rightfully) > > rejected as having no place inside the kernel, why > > should code that deals with legal issues and is > > pretty much dead weight from a technical standpoint > > be allowed in ? > > It's not legal issues. It's 1 integer and 1 sysctl variable > that allow easy filtering of nvidia and other bugreports. > THAT is the purpose of "tainted". Show in the oops that > binary only modules are used. (this assumes all gpl modules to > have a MODULE_LICENSE() line which doesn't result in code > and isn't loaded into kernel memory; recent kernels have over 99% > coverage for in-kernel drivers and lots of external drivers have > it as well). > - > 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/ > - 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/
|  |