Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules

[Andre Hedrick]

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Cort Dougan wrote:

> } This can be made clean if all the inlined C in the headers are pushed
> } back to an actual .c file and the make it function to call as an extern.
> } So the solution is to make a patch and publish that patch which cleans the
> } out the C code in question and move the associacted GPL license to the new
> } .c files.  This is proper and legal as structs are just the glue or api.
> } 
> } So if I publish this patch where it can be freely available for usage by
> } all, I comply with GPL.  This also removes any of the "extremists" points
> } of the smallest amount of GPL code invoked by the compiler can not touch
> } pure code.
> } 
> } Any arguments why this will not work?
> 
> Maybe something else would be better.  Adding -fno-inline to the build
> might be more useful.  It makes things a bit cleaner.
> 
> It's a nasty mess to have to do this for every subsystem when someone gets
> a wild-hair and starts inline-ing things without thinking.

Well since there is a fork for everything else,  how about a
business-linux-2.{4,5} fork?

As a place to make it even harder for the extremist to whine and cry over
the usages of binary only modules.

Comments?

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group