Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 07:50:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 07:50:29 -0500 Received: from [193.120.224.170] ([193.120.224.170]:43409 "EHLO florence.itg.ie") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 07:50:14 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 12:50:00 +0000 (GMT) From: Paul Jakma To: Michael Rothwell cc: Christoph Rohland , richardj_moore@uk.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Generalised Kernel Hooks Interface (GKHI) In-Reply-To: <3A0A97D0.36C5913B@holly-springs.nc.us> 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 On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote: > Why? I think the IBM GKHI code would be of tremendous value. It would > make the kernel much more flexible, and for users, much more friendly. > No more patch-and-recompile to add a filesystem or whatever. There's no > reason to hamstring their efforts because of the possibility of binary > modules. The GPL allows that, right? no gpl definitely does not alow binary modules. afaik linus allows binary modules in most cases. > So any developer of binary-only > extensions using the GKHI would not be breaking the license agreement, I > don't think. There's lots of binary modules right now -- VMWare, Aureal > sound card drivers, etc. > > I understand and agree with your desire for full source for everything, > but I disagree that we should artificially limit people's ability to use > Linux to solve their problems. > - --paulj - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/