new Samba license? (was Re: [Mono-list] Samba Implications?)

[Dick Porter]

--tjCHc7DPkfUGtrlw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 03:37:37PM -0700, Michael Torrie wrote:
> A warning here:  If the kernel hackers are justified in preventing
> non-GPL kernel modules from being loaded into the Linux kernel (even
> though the kernel is GPL'd but modules haven't been required to be up to
> this point), then Microsoft is also justified in preventing code
> produced under certain licenses from being linked to windows DLLs, and
> preventing GPL'd implementations of this specification.  We should as a
> community seriously reconsider the hard line the kernel people are
> taking with this tainted kernel business.

The kernel (last I looked) didn't prevent non-GPL modules loading.  The
purpose of the "taint" flag is so that bug reports due to closed
non-debuggable binary-only modules dont waste anyone's time.

The separate issue of preventing non-GPL kernel modules from defining new
syscalls is another matter, but perfectly justified IMHO when that is just
a technique for getting around the GPL.

Anyhow, this thread is getting off-topic for mono-list.

- Dick


--tjCHc7DPkfUGtrlw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8sBaJV5muYt9HlwURAvLKAJ9bb0IsvhCEi8m2gUzsELLp6p3CwgCfcx+g
T0ijFj1WBCbl5WF8GMxJGwU=
=orY+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--tjCHc7DPkfUGtrlw--