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

-

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:49:04 +0200
DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.

-

find /lib/modules/`uname -r` -iname '*.ko' | wc -l:
	2021
Proprietary modules that I can think of:
	5 to 10
It's not even 1/2 a !#$ percent. (Though knowing that many modules are for
Not a kernel problem.
(That said, MS would probably face yet another antitrust charge if it did that.
Perhaps you intended to buy a game console instead?
That said, no one is restraining you. You can edit the kernel source

and rip out all the GPL checks. On top, it's not like the ati or

nvidia blob-ola would not load in today's kernel.
01:00 ichi:~ > lsmod | grep nv

nvidia               4717076  22 
Oh yeah, my kernel (unpatched, btw) really tries to stop me hard

-

Jimmy, a simple script can generate a link object that

will resolve any kernel symbols for your module without

any "export symbol" stuff at all. This was previously

demonstrated to the enraged few who considered it

immoral. Nevertheless, it's just as moral as bypassing

RIAA copy protection.
Just don't expect the kernel developers to authorize

its use, or show you how to do it!
Cheers,

Dick Johnson

Penguin : Linux version 2.6.16.24 on an i686 machine (5592.59 BogoMips).

My book : http://www.AbominableFirebug.com/

_
****************************************************************

The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to DeliveryErrors@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.
Thank you.

-

Well of course you can be totally up-front and public about it.  That,

after all, is the point of GPL.

-

People who do binary-only drivers have a much better chance of not

doing a derivative work when they only use non-EXPORT_GPL exports, and

as a result not being in the wrong legally.
  OG.
-