Jimmy wrote:
I know I'll be getting hell for this, I must be a masochist.
Anyway, I've been trying to figure out what purpose the gpl-only code
serves.
What good comes out of disabling people from probing modules that do not
have a gpl-compatible license?
Who is disabling anything?
Of cause, I would love to see more hardware manufactures release either
full specs, or GPL'd drivers, and I'm sure it will happen, in time.
But until then, why are people wasting time writing code to inhibit
those who do not agree with them on licensing?
It seems pretty childish to try and force some license on people,
imagine trying to install firefox on Windows Vista, an error-dialog box
appears:
"This application has been denied access to the Windows API as its
license are compatible with the Microsoft Philosophy" ?
Now, i don't want to waste clock cycles on executing code that serves no
purpose but restraining me from using my $1500 gfx card as intended, so
will me removing that crap from the source result in somebody trying to
obfuscate it to a point where neither of us know what is what?
Also, how about a list of PROS, explain to me whats so cool about it?
The kernel gets marked as tainted when you load proprietary modules
because with no source code available there is no way to determine what
kind of badness the code may have done to break the kernel. Bug reports
from tainted kernels are generally given fairly little weight.
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
