[linux-elitists] I hate you, Greg.
Wed Oct 26 17:17:49 PDT 2005
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 04:03:12PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Any number of things could have saved that horse, including Gooch not
> hiding in a cave for years. But, as it is, the filly's stone dead and
> even my opinion that removal was inevitable irrespective of udev's
> (considerable and growing) merits won't resurrect it.
Yeah, but you should see the people that pop up every time I send in a
patch to delete it from the kernel tree, it's amazing...
> > If you have a problem with me personally, fine get in line over there
> > behind the others and I'll add you to my procmail filters (right now
> > john gilmore is at the rear of that line for some misguided reason:
> > http://www.toad.com/gnu/sysadmin/index.html#keyspan
> > )
> Although nobody could fault you for annoyance with whines-without-patch,
> you might consider not taking it personally. Just a thought.
I don't take it personally, I find it pretty funny that people can get
so worked up about something that they can help change if they really
> The Keyspan "binary firmware" might be of the same sort -- judging from
> the description.
> If so, the authors might be asserting that it isn't a derivative work
> of the kernel itself -- and good luck to them on that (or whatever
> luck the legal gods bestow).
A number of lawyers that I have consulted about this agree that it isn't
a derivative work just because of the reasons you cited.
> It might be better to load it via /sbin/hotplug -- but I can well
> understand your "Well, send a patch" reaction.
It would be better, I fully agree. My main complaint these past 5 years
is that people love to argue about it, yet not actually do the work. I
put the work at about 3-4 hours max.
> > If you have a problem with the way Debian handles udev, I'll point you
> > to the proper place to complain about that. Debian is slowly sinking
> > into the muck and it's fun watching it happen.
> Such rancour! Did Software in the Public Interest steal your lunch money?
No, I wish them the best of luck, but it's not looking very good from
the view up here in the cheap seats.
>  Witness Torvalds's meandering (if consistently imperious) policy,
> which I've tracked here: "Proprietary Kernel Modules" on
I, and others who hold copyrights on portions of the kernel are saying
very clear things about this now, "proprietary kernel modules are
illegal." It's pretty simple. Lots of major companies agree with us
too, along with their legal departments, so we aren't just pissing in
the wind here.
Oh, and at least one major distro has been served with legal papers due
to them shipping closed source kernel drivers, and more are on the way.
That's the direction some developers are taking. Others, myself
included, as taking the technical way and just making it so damn hard to
write and ship a closed kernel module, that they will just give up
eventually. Combine that with the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() stuff in the
kernel, and I give it about 1-2 more years before it's just technically
impossible to write such a module.
More information about the linux-elitists