From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263004AbTJEHjU (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2003 03:39:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263005AbTJEHjU (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2003 03:39:20 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:28299 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263004AbTJEHjS (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2003 03:39:18 -0400 Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 08:39:17 +0100 From: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk To: Andre Hedrick Cc: Rob Landley , "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]] Message-ID: <20031005073917.GK7665@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> References: <200310041952.09186.rob@landley.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 11:40:22PM -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > Tell me I can not publish a GPL w/ source code project which returns the > original API's to their normal place in history, and I will show you that > I can still draw the string on a bow. _What_ original API? I agree that silent adding _GPL to existing symbol is obnoxious and warrants a patch that would revert the change. However, if tomorrow the exported function disappears completely - tough luck. Nobody had ever promised to keep this "API" unchanged. It's not that it had been changed just for kicks (after all, you get to do changes in a bunch of in-tree drivers are such change), but such changes had happened and will happen. And there's nothing you can do about that. And folks, let's be honest. Sturgeon was an optimist. Way more than 90% of code is crap. The only way around that is to have a bunch of creatively sadistic bastards go through said code and rip the authors a new one for every hole they find (and yes, that includes ripping new ones to each other). Judging by the vendor drivers that doesn't happen. I don't care why that doesn't happen - be it "they'll buy it anyway" or "we have no resources" or "it's rude to the people who had done the original work" or "what do you mean, review?". Whatever. Unless I have very good reasons to believe that particular piece of code had been done right, crap it is. Plain and simple statistics. Code from unknown programmers presumably written to unknown specifications that had presumably passed unknown QA by unknown reviewers and testers with unknown results and then had been shipped with unknown amount of pressure exerted by sales? Geez... What a wonderful reason to assume that it would be better than average...