| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <7b69d1470702151724q141f074ak8b654f2abd581823@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:24:28 -0600 From: "Scott Preece" <sepreece@...il.com> To: "Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert@...ux-m68k.org> Cc: "v j" <vj.linux@...il.com>, "Theodore Tso" <tytso@....edu>, "Dave Jones" <davej@...hat.com>, "Linux Kernel Development" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers On 2/15/07, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, v j wrote: > Personally, I see no real difference between EXPORT_SYMBOL and > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. > If you derive from GPL'ed code, your code is a derived work. --- I agree with you that there's no difference in law, though I think the difference is that neither creates a derived work. "Derived work" is a very vague notion in law, and the case law on this has varied over time. I think it would be a real crap shoot for both sides to bring this to court, at least in the US. Note, though, that I DO support the OSS equation and believe that companies *should not* use closed-source modules, whether it's legal or not, except in the very specific case of code that also works with other systems. I think this ethical imperative goes with the nature of the author's gift to the community. scott - 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