Re: [Bridge] Re: [patch] A more general way to hook into the rx path.

From: Ben Greear (greearb@candelatech.com)
Date: Fri Feb 07 2003 - 13:11:04 EST


scw@renlabs.com wrote:
>>People can implement proprietary TCP stacks using this "nifty
>>hook" you've created. So I can't accept these changes.
>
>
> Is this a religeous argument, or is there a technical or legal issue
> lurking here that I'm not aware of? (Linux has all kinds of hooks people
> can and do use to implement proprietary things. Is this one different
> somehow?)

It seems mostly religious to me, especially since we could export the
generic hook with the GPL export option if we wanted. That is at least
a good 'protection' as is relying on folks to not over-write the bridge
hook, which does not even have the export-GPL restriction. In the past,
Dave has mentioned to me that to over-ride the bridge hook would make the
work a derivative work. I'm not sure a good lawyer couldn't beat that
argument though...

Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>       <Ben_Greear AT excite.com>
President of Candela Technologies Inc      http://www.candelatech.com
ScryMUD:  http://scry.wanfear.com     http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 07 2003 - 22:00:00 EST