RE: [PATCH] [39/40] i386: Export paravirt_ops for non GPL modulestoo
- From: "David Schwartz" <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:37:15 -0700
FWIW I think doing this first will be better, exposing _all_ to non GNU
modules will weaken whatever case we might have to take it away later.
So, NACK from me too.
I don't want to hear the whining; but it was allowed in .22, so why
should we not be able to do this in .23.... or whatever.
This is the most illogical and perverse argument I think I have *ever* seen
on this mailing list, and that's saying something.
If people find legitimate uses for it while it's available, that's a proof
that taking it away is wrong. Symbols are supposed to be marked GPL if and
only if it's not possible to use them in non-GPL'd works. So, yeah, let's
not risk letting people prove your position is wrong before you have a
chance to enforce it.
DS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- Re: [PATCH] [39/40] i386: Export paravirt_ops for non GPL modules too
- From: Peter Zijlstra
- Re: [PATCH] [39/40] i386: Export paravirt_ops for non GPL modules too
- Prev by Date: Re: [git patches] libata updates
- Next by Date: Re: [BUG] 2.6.21: Kernel won't boot with either/both of CONFIG_NO_HZ, CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] [39/40] i386: Export paravirt_ops for non GPL modules too
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] [39/40] i386: Export paravirt_ops for non GPL modules too
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
