[olug] OT: more Hans goodness

[Will Langford]

> You can't reverse engineer an ABI when an ABI does not even exist. If you
> reverse-engineer the "ABI" (internal symbols) for Linux 2.6.25, your
> resulting code will break in 2.6.25.1 because, not having an ABI, it has
> changed.

So the days of compiling module version stuffs into the kernel and
using several point version-behind modules on an existing kernel ...
is impossible?  I've not paid too much attention to 2.6 stuffs, so I
might be a bit dated on this :).  I know in 2.4 and possibly 2.2, I've
run out of sync module versions with the running kernel many times.

> Then go hire some IP lawyers yourself. You and I debating this on a mailing
> list is far less than what prominent developers (copyright holders, even)
> think.

I was waiting for this comment from early on in the thread :), and
sadly is the only real solution unless a real lawyer (who understands
source/compiling/linking) makes some kind of public statement on the
subject heh.  Since ya don't link against the kernel, if including the
headers makes the source-wrapper 'derivative', then by all means do
they breach the license.

I'll prolly eventually run gcc preprocessor thing over some standard
includes to see if the problem is indeed beyond just kernel modules.
If gcc includes eventually virally insist all software is GPL, this
could be a serious legal problem if Linus ever decides to push the big
red button :).

-Will