From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 13:45:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 13:45:12 -0400 Received: from congress194.linuxsymposium.org ([209.151.18.194]:3588 "EHLO mobilix.ras.ucalgary.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 13:44:56 -0400 Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 13:44:05 -0400 Message-Id: <200107281744.f6SHi5d00829@mobilix.ras.ucalgary.ca> From: Richard Gooch To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Alan Cox , Matthew Gardiner , "Philip R. Auld" , kernel Subject: Re: binary modules (was Re: ReiserFS / 2.4.6 / Data Corruption) In-Reply-To: <3B62E80A.C732C3F5@mandrakesoft.com> In-Reply-To: <3B62E80A.C732C3F5@mandrakesoft.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing Jeff Garzik writes: > Alan Cox wrote: > > The Linux freevxfs module is read only currently. Veritas apparently will be > > releasing the genuine article for Linux but binary only with all the mess > > that entails > > Isn't that a violation of the GPL, to release binary modules? Linus said it's OK. I know Alan doesn't agree, but that's life :-) The king penguin has spoken. I don't see the need to be bloody-minded on this issue. If a vendor wants to go through the pain of tracking kernel drift and having to compile modules for many different versions, then let them. Given how much trouble it is, why bother them with legal threats? The right answer for vendors who want to ship binary modules is to ship an Open Source interface layer which shields the vendor from kernel drift (since users will be able to build the interface layer if they need to, without waiting for the vendor). I guess that would also shield them from unhelpful legal threats. Regards, Richard.... Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca