[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071203001441.02cd6f2a@the-village.bc.nu>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 00:14:41 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: davids@...master.com
Cc: "Stephen Hemminger" <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Mark Lord" <lkml@....ca>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...e.de>, "Greg KH" <greg@...ah.com>,
"Tejun Heo" <htejun@...il.com>,
"Linux Containers" <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
<stern@...land.harvard.edu>, <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Herbert Xu" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: namespace support requires network modules to say "GPL"
> You license yours under the GPL, so they should respect the GPL.
>
> It sounds like we're back to where we were years ago. Didn't we already
> agree that EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL was *NOT* a GPL-enforcement mechanism and had
> nothing to do with respecting the GPL? After all, if it s a GPL-enforcement
No we seem to be back recycling the fact that certain people were making
statements that might be construed, unanswered, as giving permission to
violate the GPL.
I'm merely reminding people that I've not waived my GPL rights, I've not
said modules are somehow magically OK, and I don't agree with Linus.
The GPL very clearly says that you can make your own unredistributed
modifications and keep them that way.
Alan
--
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