Henning P. Schmied writes:
> Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So it comes down to the question of whether the module is linking
>> (which is about dependancies and requirements) and what the legal
>> scope is. Which is a matter for lawyers.
>
> And this would void DaveMs' argument, that only the "official in
> Linus' kernel published interface is allowed for binary modules". This
> would mean, that putting the posted, unofficial patch under GPL into
> the kernel and then using this interface for a binary module is just
> the same as using only the official ABI from a lawyers' point of
> view!
>
> This would make DaveMs' position even less understandable, because
> there would be no difference for a proprietary vendor but keeping the
> patch out of the kernel makes life harder for people like the original
> poster that want to test new (open sourced) protocols like SCTP.
Yep.
Consider a chunk of x86 instructions using a home-grown OS
abstraction layer, and drivers that implement that layer for
both Linux and any non-GPL operating system. The binary blob
is obviously not derived from Linux, and may in fact run
without modification in a BSD or Solaris/x86 kernel.
There is in fact just such a layer. It might not currently
have the features needed to implement TCP, but it could be
extended as needed.
-
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/
