Re: GPLONLY kernel symbols???

[David Lang]

but there is a difference between a 'binary only' module and a 'GPL
module'

the current process mixes the two up.

David Lang

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:32:25 +0100
> From: Arjan van de Ven <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: GPLONLY kernel symbols???
>
>
> > The real question is whether or not the kernel
> > code should be encumbered with legal issues. The
> > fact that this or that piece of code is or isn't GPL
> > should be in a text file attached to the kernel
> > tarball. This sort of thing has no place in the
> > code : countless patches with useful code that
> > should live in userland have been (rightfully)
> > rejected as having no place inside the kernel, why
> > should code that deals with legal issues and is
> > pretty much dead weight from a technical standpoint
> > be allowed in ?
>
> It's not legal issues. It's 1 integer and 1 sysctl variable
> that allow easy filtering of nvidia and other bugreports.
> THAT is the purpose of "tainted". Show in the oops that
> binary only modules are used. (this assumes all gpl modules to
> have a MODULE_LICENSE() line which doesn't result in code
> and isn't loaded into kernel memory; recent kernels have over 99%
> coverage for in-kernel drivers and lots of external drivers have
> it as well).
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [e-mail]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>