Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:48:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:47:58 -0500 Received: from nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com ([66.187.233.200]:28005 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:47:45 -0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:46:58 -0500 (EST) From: Ingo Molnar X-X-Sender: mingo@devserv.devel.redhat.com To: Andrea Arcangeli cc: Tigran Aivazian , Alan Cox , Keith Owens , Marcelo Tosatti , Arjan van de Ven , Hugh Dickins , Stelian Pop , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.5.5] do export vmalloc_to_page to modules... In-Reply-To: <20020404185510.D32431@dualathlon.random> 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, 4 Apr 2002, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > I don't really worry about that, important things will defend by > themself, beacuse the GPL solution will be always superior of an order > of magnitude. [...] how do you do that if the GPL is not being honored? What if in 5 years most of the distros ship heaps of binary-only drivers, filesystems, storage solutions, and you'll need them just to be able to operate your daily system. What if you cannot do certain changes to the kernel because your system will not boot up without a certain binary-only module. sure, today it's easy to say "i'm not using any 'stinkin binary-only module". But tomorrow you might have no choice, because vendors will just use binary-only modules to "support Linux". And while 'no module at all' used to result in a GPL driver being developed quickly, are you sure people will write a GPL replacement if there's a binary-only module available? Even if there are such people, who will test the driver if the binary-only driver is just 'good enough' for the majority of users? The wide availability of binary-only modules was not an issue until now, so we (well, a subset of the copyright holders) allowed it to a certain extent. The reason why they werent an issue was simple: commercial entities saw little value in Linux, so commercial kernel development was somewhere between light and nonexistent. These days Linux has already grown over a certain size, it's a big factor in the server world, and it's a tiny but growing subset of the desktop world as well - large enough to show up on the marketing radar of the largest volume companies. So we are going to see much more development that is not sympathetic (ie. neutral or even hostile) towards Linux as a development community, so we have wear some protective gear against 'interesting' interpretations of the GPL and all related protection measures we have. Believe me, those companies wouldnt mind if it costed them $$$ to license the Linux source code, and if they had to sign NDAs to see it, as long as they can be as secretive about the internal workings of their technology as possible, and as long as they are able to say to users that "we support Linux". it's naive to think that our defenses (the GPL, API practices) that guaranteed the 'fun' component of Linux development that you and i enjoyed so much over the years can stay constant over time. New technologies arise, laws change, even the interpretation of the constitution (of certain countries) changes. Ingo - 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/