Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
GNU virtual private Ethernet
On LTO builds with 32bit compilers.
Posted Aug 22, 2012 13:21 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Posted Aug 22, 2012 13:34 UTC (Wed) by andikleen (guest, #39006)
That said I haven't actually tried it with a 32bit compiler. Testing welcome.
Posted Aug 22, 2012 18:25 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
Posted Aug 24, 2012 15:49 UTC (Fri) by malor (subscriber, #2973)
Is that incorrect? Are static kernels actually reasonably possible?
Posted Aug 24, 2012 16:12 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Aug 24, 2012 23:01 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
I haven't seen anyone sued for the source of a firmware blob if the firmware blob itself didn't included GPL code in it. (as opposed to the firmware blob being used as data by GPL code and uploaded to a device)
A lot of the linux kernel developers consider the splitting of the firmware out of the source tree to be a waste of time from a technical and legal point of view, but they don't fight it because it shuts up the people who think that it does matter from a legal point of view.
besides, the GPL only comes in to play when you distribute the resulting binary. There's a huge amount of stuff that you can do (especially in a large company) without triggering this.
Posted Aug 25, 2012 4:44 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Aug 25, 2012 5:06 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
There are a LOT of people who don't think it would.
Also, even if it did, it wouldn't matter for lots of people, because they don't distribute the resulting binaries.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds