> ... for people to modify software for their own use > ... private use/modification/etc > It's my computer, I get to run whatever code I want to. The patch

> ... for people to modify software for their own use > ... private use/modification/etc > It's my computer, I get to run whatever code I want to. The patch changes none of that. The patch doesn't prevent you from disabling this restriction on your private builds. It seems you still don't get the purpose of the patch. It is not designed to make _your_ private use difficult. It is designed to make _public_ contribution attempts like TFA that waste everyone's time again and again easy to push back against. TFA is not the first time something like this has happened. The kernel devs have repeatedly had to tell people off from trying to add proprietary-dependent or for-proprietary modules into the kernel. Adding a switch for GPL-and-non-GPL mixing makes that explicit and easy to catch. > If they had their way I'm sure we wouldn't even be allowed to talk to them if we had ever used proprietary software at all. I don't know where this antagonism comes from, but it seems like you're missing the point. Try to look at the posting from their point-of-view. It wasn't that the poster used some proprietary software on their own, but that they forced said proprietary software on every reviewer on the mailing list. Surely, you understand the distinction?