*yawn*

*yawn*

Posted Dec 14, 2006 2:10 UTC (Thu) by pjhacnau (subscriber, #4223)
In reply to: *yawn* by imcdnzl
Parent article: Binary-only kernel modules may be banned

I've just re-read the thread. Here is the closest Greg KH comes to saying "ban binary modules" or similar.

> Again, X does this today, and does does lots of other applications.
> This is a way to do it in a sane manner, to keep people who want to do
> floating point out of the kernel, and to make some embedded people much
> happier to use Linux, gets them from being so mad at Linux because we
> keep changing the internal apis, and makes me happier as they stop
> violating my copyright by creating closed drivers in the kernel.

There's nothing new in there. Greg's position on closed drivers is well known. He's not arguing for changing of licence wording, or sticking the "GPL Only" macro on any new symbols. All he's doing here is proposing an "out" for those who insist on doing them so he can ignore them.

So, IMHO, the only *new* bit in there is another developer saying "let's just ban them outright", and Andrew Morton's response. The rest, in terms of the "allow/disallow binary modules" argument (as opposed to the technical merit of Greg's patch) is just a rehash.

So unless our esteemed Editor has some information about movements outside of this email thread, I don't think the *new* statements there warrant an article at all.

Note1: Mr Corbet may well know of other happenings; if so can we know them too?

Note2: It's not newsworthy yet. That doesn't preclude additional posts in the thread appearing which do make it worth reporting on. But I'd expect an article on it then, not now.

---

(Log in to post comments)