Re: feature request - why not make netif_rx() a pointer?

From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen (hps@intermeta.de)
Date: Wed Oct 23 2002 - 11:26:52 EST

Next message: Andi Kleen: "Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security"
Previous message: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security"
In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: feature request - why not make netif_rx() a pointer?"
Next in thread: David S. Miller: "Re: feature request - why not make netif_rx() a pointer?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:

>> Not putting an export into the source or exporting GPL_ONLY symbols
>> won't hinder anyone. Because putting the hooks into a GPL source and
>> then releasing the result (code + hooks) under GPL is perfectly legal.

>Not according to lawyers

"The kernel source code + hooks under GPL" definitely are.

"The kernel source code + hooks + binary modules" are doubtful, correct.

Sorry, my wording wasn't clear.

Regards
Henning

-- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 - 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/

Next message: Andi Kleen: "Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security"
Previous message: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security"
In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: feature request - why not make netif_rx() a pointer?"
Next in thread: David S. Miller: "Re: feature request - why not make netif_rx() a pointer?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 23 2002 - 22:01:04 EST