+1 -1

Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst

reviewed

··· 194 194 are cloudy at best; quite a few kernel copyright holders believe that 195 195 most binary-only modules are derived products of the kernel and that, as 196 196 a result, their distribution is a violation of the GNU General Public 197 197 - license (about which more will be said below). Your author is not a 197 197 + License (about which more will be said below). Your author is not a 198 198 lawyer, and nothing in this document can possibly be considered to be 199 199 legal advice. The true legal status of closed-source modules can only be 200 200 determined by the courts. But the uncertainty which haunts those modules

+1 -1

Documentation/process/2.Process.rst

reviewed

··· 3 3 How the development process works 4 4 ================================= 5 5 6 6 - Linux kernel development in the early 1990's was a pretty loose affair, 6 6 + Linux kernel development in the early 1990s was a pretty loose affair, 7 7 with relatively small numbers of users and developers involved. With a 8 8 user base in the millions and with some 2,000 developers involved over the 9 9 course of one year, the kernel has since had to evolve a number of

+3 -3

Documentation/process/4.Coding.rst

reviewed

··· 160 160 Locking 161 161 ******* 162 162 163 163 - In May, 2006, the "Devicescape" networking stack was, with great 163 163 + In May 2006, the "Devicescape" networking stack was, with great 164 164 fanfare, released under the GPL and made available for inclusion in the 165 165 mainline kernel. This donation was welcome news; support for wireless 166 166 networking in Linux was considered substandard at best, and the Devicescape 167 167 stack offered the promise of fixing that situation. Yet, this code did not 168 168 - actually make it into the mainline until June, 2007 (2.6.22). What 168 168 + actually make it into the mainline until June 2007 (2.6.22). What 169 169 happened? 170 170 171 171 This code showed a number of signs of having been developed behind ··· 204 204 It is often argued that a regression can be justified if it causes things 205 205 to work for more people than it creates problems for. Why not make a 206 206 change if it brings new functionality to ten systems for each one it 207 207 - breaks? The best answer to this question was expressed by Linus in July, 207 207 + breaks? The best answer to this question was expressed by Linus in July 208 208 2007: 209 209 210 210 ::

+1 -1

Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst

reviewed

··· 53 53 will, of course, need a server that can be pulled from. Setting up such a 54 54 server with git-daemon is relatively straightforward if you have a system 55 55 which is accessible to the Internet. Otherwise, free, public hosting sites 56 56 - (Github, for example) are starting to appear on the net. Established 56 56 + (GitHub, for example) are starting to appear on the net. Established 57 57 developers can get an account on kernel.org, but those are not easy to come 58 58 by; see https://kernel.org/faq/ for more information. 59 59