On Fri, 4 Oct 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > Also, remember that the GPL says: > > "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for > making modifications to it." > > So here's the question: is the assembly code the perferred form to make > modifications? From what you're saying above, the answer to that seems > to be no. Now, I'm not going to throw toys out of the pram and say > that this is a hard requirement, but just take a moment to think about > how we treat vendors who don't do this, instead supplying "non-preferred" > forms of source code, and think about whether there's double standards > here. > > Now, while I can imagine that people have an ideological objection to > perl (using comments like "write only code" etc) that's not a good > enough excuse to avoid including the perferred form for future > modification. > > Now, we have mechanisms in the kernel build where we can include a > prepared source which can be used to lessen the burden on the toolset > required to build the kernel. So, including both the perl script and > the pre-generated assembly is entirely acceptable. This tends to > nullify the excuse that "we don't want to add additional tool burden > to kbuild" argument. Those are very good arguments. And I agree with your recommendation as well. Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
