From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932536AbVLEVZX (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2005 16:25:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932537AbVLEVZX (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2005 16:25:23 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:17583 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932536AbVLEVZW (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2005 16:25:22 -0500 Subject: Re: Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario From: Arjan van de Ven To: David Woodhouse Cc: Andrew Walrond , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1133817575.11280.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1133779953.9356.9.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <200512051826.06703.andrew@walrond.org> <1133817575.11280.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 22:24:38 +0100 Message-Id: <1133817888.9356.78.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.0.4 on pentafluge.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (1.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [213.93.14.173 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 1.7 RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL RBL: NJABL: dialup sender did non-local SMTP [213.93.14.173 listed in combined.njabl.org] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 21:19 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 18:26 +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote: > > > On December 6th, 2005 the kernel developers en mass decide that binary > > > modules are legally fine and also essential for the progress of linux, > > > > Has anyone (influential) actually being toying with this idea? I hope not, but > > if they are, I'd like to know who to lobby... > > http://git.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=e3c3374fbf7efe9487edc53cd10436ed641983aa I think you're wrong on this. Not about thinking it should be reverted per se, but in the big picture it's not linked to the scenario. One export more or less doesn't matter at all.