Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
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 (subscriber, #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