No, but it doesn't mean you can't accept them either, and history shows the kernel maintainers are OK with accepting code interfacing with closed source MS technologies, as long as they are just platform support, such as this and Hyper-V's cases.
If by "tainted" you mean non-GPLv2 compliant, then you're also wrong here. Forks are covered by the GPL just as much as mainline. They wouldn't be able to legally distribute that.
Quackdoc and I have shown you several examples of this kind of "tainted" patches coming specifically from Microsoft that got mainlined. And willingness from Greg KH is no small thing, he's Linus' right hand.
OK. Let me explain it in simple terms. Copyleft propagates to forks. That's pretty much the idea. Whether Android forks the kernel is irrelevant. If you really had to ship only copyleft software to ship Linux in a device, Android would have to do the same. It doesn't, because copyleft only works for derivatives, not all the stuff that runs on top of it. At this point I can only assume you're trolling, nobody can be that misguided. I'll desubscribe and stop feeding you after this message.
I will put up a reminder to tell you "fucking told you so" in a few weeks when Michael posts it's been merged :^)
It's 2.0, which is still less restrictive than GPL3. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux...t/tree/COPYING
Which clearly explains the object is about closed-source kernel modules, which _is_ _not_ _the_ _case_.
Originally posted by mSparks
View Post
Originally posted by mSparks
View Post
Originally posted by mSparks
View Post
Originally posted by mSparks
View Post
I will put up a reminder to tell you "fucking told you so" in a few weeks when Michael posts it's been merged :^)
Originally posted by mSparks
View Post
Originally posted by mSparks
View Post
Originally posted by mSparks
View Post
Comment