From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265060AbTLKOs7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:48:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265061AbTLKOs6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:48:58 -0500 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:14009 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265060AbTLKOs4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:48:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:46:04 +0100 (CET) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: Ingo Molnar To: Larry McVoy Cc: Linus Torvalds , Kendall Bennett , "'Andre Hedrick'" , "'Arjan van de Ven'" , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? In-Reply-To: <20031211010327.GA27196@work.bitmover.com> Message-ID: References: <00af01c3bf41$2db12770$d43147ab@amer.cisco.com> <3FD7081D.31093.61FCFA36@localhost> <20031210221800.GM6896@work.bitmover.com> <20031211010327.GA27196@work.bitmover.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-ELTE-SpamVersion: SpamAssassin ELTE 1.0 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no, SpamAssassin (score=-4.9, required 5.9, BAYES_00 -4.90) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > Not only that, I think the judge would have something to say about the > > > fact that the modules interface is delibrately changed all the time > > > with stated intent of breaking binary drivers. > > > > Where do you people _find_ these ideas? > > Oh, I don't know, years of reading this list maybe? Come on, Linus, do > you really need me to go surfing around to find all the postings to the > list where people were saying that's why change is good? I *know* you > have said it. Don't play dumb, you have and you know it. i challenge you to find such posts. What maybe might have happened is that someone said "dont change this, it changes the module API" then someone else said "that is not a good reason at all" - which is a perfectly correct position. Maybe sometimes an interface was changed (or even removed) because modules used it in a really unsafe way that lead to many bogus bugreports and stability problems. I cant remember any instance of pure "hey, lets change this function for fun and for breaking binary modules". i've been around here for a long time too and i find your accusation insulting. and even if someone did do something deliberately, it would be completely legal, in fact, an action expressly protected by law. It is a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work. Deactivating an effective technological measure is against 17 USC 1201. (the DMCA) Believe me, most kernel copyright holders are _a lot_ less anal about their rights than they could be. Every time Congress makes copyright laws stronger for Disney & co, the kernel copyright gets stronger too. Ingo