Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:7200 unix-pc.general:3492
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!dptcdc!hybrid!mdapoz
From: mdapoz@hybrid.UUCP (Mark Dapoz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,unix-pc.general
Subject: Re: UNIXPC: 3.5.1.4 worth my time?
Keywords: 3.5, 3.5.1.4, 3.51, 3.51a, 3.51d, HIKE!
Message-ID: <1989Aug5.043720.8109@hybrid.UUCP>
Date: 5 Aug 89 04:37:20 GMT
References: <1989Jul31.153826.21079@ivucsb.sba.ca.us> <1584@mtunb.ATT.COM> <758@argon.UUCP>
Reply-To: mdapoz@hybrid.UUCP (Mark Dapoz)
Organization: The Home for Unemployed Basselopes, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 21

In article <758@argon.UUCP> ebh@argon.UUCP (Ed Horch) writes:
>Hypothetical question:  Suppose someone from the "Institute for
>Unix-PC Research" used legally licensed 3B1 OS source, purchased from
>AT&T, to hack up the general disk driver to use all the capability of
>the Milton board.  How illegal would it be to give away the BINARY of
>the new driver?  What about the general case of binary bugfix patches?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the gd driver is linked directly 
into the kernel and can't be setup as a loadable device driver.  Given this,
you would have to distribute a new kernel which would probably not go over
too well with the folks at AT&T.

I found the reference about gd I was looking for.  In the CTIX device driver 
manual they state: "Because syslocal(2) currently does not patch the gdsw
table, drivers for the general disk-type devices are not loadable."

-- 
  Mark Dapoz  (mdapoz@hybrid.UUCP)  ...uunet!{mnetor,dptcdc}!hybrid!mdapoz

I remind you that humans are only a tiny minority in this galaxy.
	   -- Spock, "The Apple," stardate 3715.6.