I know I'll be getting hell for this, I must be a masochist. Anyway, I've been trying to figure out what purpose the gpl-only code serves. What good comes out of disabling people from probing modules that do not have a gpl-compatible license? Of cause, I would love to see more hardware manufactures release either full specs, or GPL'd drivers, and I'm sure it will happen, in time. But until then, why are people wasting time writing code to inhibit those who do not agree with them on licensing? It seems pretty childish to try and force some license on people, imagine trying to install firefox on Windows Vista, an error-dialog box appears: "This application has been denied access to the Windows API as its license are compatible with the Microsoft Philosophy" ? Now, i don't want to waste clock cycles on executing code that serves no purpose but restraining me from using my $1500 gfx card as intended, so will me removing that crap from the source result in somebody trying to obfuscate it to a point where neither of us know what is what? Also, how about a list of PROS, explain to me whats so cool about it? - Jimmy -
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| david | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Rob Landley | What still uses the block layer? |
git: | |
| Antonio Almeida | HTB accuracy for high speed |
| Alexey Dobriyan | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
