RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

[Hua Zhong]

> For one thing, the plugin was made by someone without access 
> to Netscape or IE's source code, using a documented interface 
> that contained sufficient information to do the job without access 
> to that source code.
>
> Yes, it matters.

_What_ matters?

Open source? (if you write a plugin for an opensource
kernel/application, you are not plugin anymore and you are derived
work.) I am sure you don't mean it.

Documented interface? Hey, there are sources which are the best
documentation. :-)

Seriously, even if I accept that there is never an intent to support a
stable ABI for kernel modules, some vendor can easily claim that "we
support a stable ABI, so write kernel modules for the kernel we
distribute".

Anything can prevent that? I cannot see GPL disallow it.

So OK, Linus and other kernel developers never intended to provide a
stable ABI, but someone else could. The original author's intent is
never relevant anymore. This is the goodness of opensource, isn't it?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/