Re: [PATCH] sockreg2.4.5-05 inet[6]_create() register/unregistertable

[Mike Galbraith]

On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, watermodem wrote:

> Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, watermodem wrote:
> >
> > > "David S. Miller" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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]
> > >
> > > David,
> > >
> > >    What is your real problem with La Monte's Code.
> > >    I don't buy your more "blessed than thou" argument.
> > >    It is a typical response one normally sees in large
> > >    organizations from folk with "empires" to protect.
> > >    Coming from the "land of warring tribes" firm it is
> > >    a attitude I have seen often.  My response is take
> > >    a vacation, chill out and reassess.
> >
> > What words would you like to put in his mouth to replace those he used?
> >
> >         -Mike
> No words.....  Just suggesting to calm down for awhile before getting
> into a flame-war.  I am old enough to know that nothing is lost by
> considering your words before painting yourself into a corner you may
> not want to occupy in the future.

There is a rather amusing contradiction present in these new words..
your first words were ill chosen to the point of being offensive.

I've said what I had to say, so consider yourself flamed.

	-Mike