Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262312AbTINFuW (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Sep 2003 01:50:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262314AbTINFuW (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Sep 2003 01:50:22 -0400 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:25611 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262312AbTINFuU (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Sep 2003 01:50:20 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 22:32:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Andre Hedrick To: Erik Andersen cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]] In-Reply-To: <20030914053902.GA20198@codepoet.org> 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: 1890 Lines: 56 Erik, Explain how a symbol in 2.4 which was EXPORT_SYMBOL is now EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL in 2.6 ? When you can explain why the API for functionallity in 2.4 is ripped off like an old lady's purse by a two-bit punk and made nojn-functional in 2.6 you may have a point. But, you know what, I don't give a damn (DGD). It is wrong and the original intent when it was discussed was for "NEW SYMBOLS ONLY". But if distros can add in Symbols for code that does not exist in the tree, why can't people change them? But you have a nice day, and do you need a mail address for that letter you want to send me? Please make it on heavy stock, you need some fiber in your diet. Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Erik Andersen wrote: > On Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 09:58:41PM -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > > > Pretty Boy, > > > > It is coming and the intent is to return all the stolen symbols. > > It is free for anyone to use and enjoy the usage of Linux once again. > > So everyone get in line and SUE ME for GPL'ed drivers. > > Do whatever you want. Its your life. Laugh at people, mock > people, rant, rave, violtate licenses, wantever you want. > > When you are done making noise, please explain how a closed > source binary only product that runs within the context of the > Linux kernel is not a derivitive work, per the very definition > given in the kernel COPYING file that grants you your limited > rights for copying, distribution and modification, > > -Erik > > -- > Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/ > --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons-- > - 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/