Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

[Nick Piggin]

Kendall Bennett wrote:

> Jesse Pollard <jesse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > > You miss my point. I was talking about a single kernel version. For a
> > > single kernel version, the ABI is both *published* and *stable*. Sure it
> > > may not be what you consider a *clean* or *good* ABI, but it *IS* an
> > > ABI. Note that:
> > >
> > > 1. It is a published ABI because for that one kernel release, all the
> > > source code is available that documents the ABI (albiet badly IYO).
> > >
> > > 2. It is stable because that kernel version will never change on your
> > > machine.
> > Huh? I frequently update the kernel, and the kernel minor version... as
> > well as switch from uniprocessor to SMP. The major version may not change,
> > but that minor one certanly does. And adding SMP changes the ABI for that
> > version. And patches CAN and DO change the ABI, even within the major
> > version.
>
> So what? You don't change it on *MY* machine, now do you? *MY* version 
> remains stable regardless of what *YOU* do unless I update my source 
> code.

Linus doesn't change it on *YOUR* machine either, when he releases a new
kernel. You do when you pull his changes. The point is the difficulty from
a module distributor's point of view.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/