From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: omgalvan.86@gmail.com (Martin Galvan)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 14:19:47 -0300
Subject: Building separate files for a kernel module
In-Reply-To: <20180405150202.GA32439@kroah.com>
References: <CAN19L9F9jKy_wtJ-BZTkHJa+z0TOUTT2wztj=GFN6fgJUR7d1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <50983.1522905998@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
 <CAN19L9GzpC3=OFjdsb1fBgaM9a3S2YUP6rtnAqqKmRsTM-fRJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180405150202.GA32439@kroah.com>
Message-ID: <CAN19L9FAO1pJAc4XSN_KHH5g=nJSAKHxMVCYYyjc5F29tnVMwQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org

2018-04-05 12:02 GMT-03:00 Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:49:36AM -0300, Martin Galvan wrote:
>> I want my module to be DKMS-enabled, but since the 'bar' binaries
>> don't use anything Linux-specific I don't want to distribute the
>> sources for it.
>
> Hahaha, good luck, please discuss this with a lawyer as to the
> legalities involved.  You are on your own here.

You're right, and I apologize if this practice is frowned upon. I just
assumed it wasn't since the kbuild docs mention ways for having binary
blobs included with kernel modules.

Thanks for the answer.