RE: [PATCH] sockreg2.4.5-05 inet[6]_create() register/unregister table

[David S. Miller]

George Bonser writes:
 > There is, of course, one basic problem with that argument. While you can say
 > (and probably rightly so) that such a change would not be included in Linus'
 > kernel, I think anyone is allowed to post a patch that might make it
 > possible to add protocols as modules. If anyone chooses to use it is each
 > individual's decision but you could not prevent ACME from creating a patch
 > that allows protocol modules as long as they distributed the patch. Also,  I
 > know that you are allowed to distribute proprietary modules in binary form
 > but are there any restrictions on what function these modules can perform?
 > I don't remember seeing any such restrictions.

People can post whatever patches which do whatever, sure.
But this isn't what matters.

What matters is the API under which a binary-only module may interface
to the kernel.  Linus specifies that only the module exports in his
tree fall into this API.

As I stated in another email, the allowance of binary-only kernel
modules is a special exception to the licensing of the kernel made by
Linus.  The GPL by itself, does not allow this at all.

Later,
David S. Miller
[e-mail]