[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m3d4qj90zm.fsf@maximus.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:43:57 +0100
From: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To: davids@...master.com
Cc: <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Alan Cox" <alan@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 - fix mcount GPL bogosity.
"David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com> writes:
> I don't know who told you that or why, but it's obvious nonsense,
Correct.
> Exports should be marked GPL if and only if they cannot be used
> except in a derivative work. If it is possible to use them without taking
> sufficient protectable expression, they should not be marked GPL.
This isn't very obvious to me.
The licence doesn't talk about GPL or non-GPL exports. It doesn't
restrict the use, only distribution of the software. One is free to
remove _GPL from the code and distribute it anyway (except perhaps for
some DMCA nonsense).
If a code is a derivative work it has to be distributed (use is not
restricted) under GPL, EXPORT _GPL or not _GPL.
One may say _GPL is a strong indication that all users are
automatically a derivative works, but it's only that - indication. It
doesn't mean they are really derivative works and it doesn't mean a
module not using any _GPL exports isn't a derivative.
I think introducing these _GPL symbols was a mistake in the first place.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
--
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