Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 08:02:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 08:02:13 -0500 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:57094 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 08:02:12 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 05:08:45 -0800 (PST) From: Andre Hedrick To: Arjan van de Ven cc: David McIlwraith , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules In-Reply-To: <1037875005.1863.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1187 Lines: 32 On 21 Nov 2002, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 03:49, David McIlwraith wrote: > > How should it? The compiler (specifically, the C preprocessor) includes the > > code, thus it is not the AUTHOR violating the GPL. > > It is if the AUTHOR then decides to distribute the resulting binary > which would contain a mix of GPL and non GPL work.. The mix is a direct result of developers knowingly inlining critical C code into the headers. If this code was placed in proper .c files and not set in a .h then the potential for accidental mixing is removed. This would limit and restrict the headers to being structs and extern functions to call. This would be the first step to narrow the grey and broaden the black and white. I expect to be showered with boos and go away stupid, followed by "We are not here to make it easy for binary modules! Go use BSD you moron!!!". Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group - 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/