Nothing would stop someone from distributing a kernel that did not reject
those drivers. The GPL doesn't permit you to add additional restrictions to
it, so you can't add a clause prohibiting such distribution.
>Now until the kernel forcable rejects loading binary closed source
>modules, it defaults to quietly approved of the concept regardless what
>you think, feel, or care.
There would just be a set of patches to bypass that rejection. Every major
distribution would distribute kernels with those patches. You can't GPL code
and at the same time control how it is used.
As I argued in my previous post, it would be suicidal for any advocate of
open source to attempt to broaden the scope of what constitutes a 'derived
work' or narrow the scope of fair use or first sale type doctrines.
Hey, we're almost back on topic for this list. Happy new year.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/