Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:34:56 +0100
David Schwartz <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
[...]
That's exactly what I'm arguing. That a linker is just like
tar+gzip.
This statement has not become more true in the meantime. A linker is
not an archiver because it does not create archive files. An archiver
is not a linker because it does not create combined executables.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- References:
- module license taints kernel.
- From: guru
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: Bob Tennent
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: Chris Friesen
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: Bob Tennent
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: Bob Tennent
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: Bob Tennent
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: Bob Tennent
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: Bob Tennent
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: Bob Tennent
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: Lajos Parkatti ISES
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: David Schwartz
- module license taints kernel.
- Prev by Date: Re: running Linux with no swap space (but lots of RAM)
- Next by Date: Re: How does free() know how many bytes to free???
- Previous by thread: Re: module license taints kernel.
- Next by thread: Re: module license taints kernel.
- Index(es):