[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0702032136430.13874@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:47:36 +0100 (MET)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To: David Schwartz <davids@...master.com>
cc: "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Ban module license tag string termination trick
On Feb 3 2007 10:31, David Schwartz wrote:
>
>The way out of the GPL problem is to make clear that it is *not* a
>copyright enforcement scheme
So why do we have EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL then, if
- there shall be no enforcement (such as requiring modules to carry
exactly one MODULE_LICENSE, and it be GPL to access GPL symbols)
- EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL can be circumvented by having multiple
MODULE_LICENSE and one of those MODULE_LICENSE is ("GPL")
[see Bodo's patch]
I think Linus has made a stance on the purpose of _GPL [yup,
http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/4/84 ], and I interpret his words "if you
need this export, you're clearly doing something that requires the GPL"
being in conflict with [X].
[X]: """obj-combo += proprietary.o gpldummy.o""" and allowing
proprietary.c to use GPL symbols just because the combo.ko file contains
at least one MODULE_LICENSE("GPL").
Note IANAL, more a developer, so please don't flame too much.
Jan
--
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists