Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 04:05:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 04:05:56 -0500 Received: from xsmtp.ethz.ch ([129.132.97.6]:34900 "EHLO xsmtp.ethz.ch") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 04:05:55 -0500 Message-ID: <3DDCA39C.7040602@debian.org> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:13:00 +0100 From: Giacomo Catenazzi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2b) Gecko/20021016 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, it-ch, it, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andre Hedrick CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: TAINTED (Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules) References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Nov 2002 09:13:02.0019 (UTC) FILETIME=[3141C930:01C2913E] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 924 Lines: 22 > If Linux is to truly only a GPL binary module friendly environment, then > it must enforce the rules. Therefore it must forcablely reject the > attempt to load any and all binaries which are not GPL. Regardless if the > license is commerial yet the source code is available. > Read GPL! I can modify/create *private* and completly *non-free* code, and link to GPL, legally. [I cannot distribute it, but kernel should not block me!] nvidia unfortunatly use this, to not to disclose the complete sources] And I can use an other OSI approved license, GPL compatible, but if it is not yet recognized by kernel? Should kernel include all free licences strings? ciao giacomo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/