linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <44E67B6E.10706@goop.org>
Date:	Sat, 19 Aug 2006 03:46:06 +0100
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
CC:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Andi Kleen <ak@....de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	virtualization <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> These are Linux specific operations.
>
> Without an _GPL you are in the grey area where courts have to decide 
> whether a module using this would be a derived work according to 
> copyright law in $country_of_the_court and therefore has to be GPL.
>
> With the _GPL, everything is clear without any lawyers involved.
>   

Hardly.  The _GPL is a hint as to the intent of the author, but it is no 
more than a hint.

My intent here (and I think the intent of the other authors) is not to 
cause breakage of things which currently work, so the _GPL is not 
appropriate for that reason.  Paravirt_ops is a restatement of many 
interfaces which already exist in Linux in a non-_GPL form, so making 
the structure _GPL is effectively relicensing them.

    J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/