[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47C847E8.3070905@nortel.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:59:04 -0600
From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Pavel Roskin <proski@....org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...masters.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.25] module: allow ndiswrapper to use GPL-only symbols
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Chris Friesen wrote:
>
>>But the GPL only applies to derivative works. Given that ndiswrapper loads
>>binaries designed for another OS, doesn't that mean that it is unlikely that
>>the binaries would be impacted by the GPL?
>
>
> But that's what GPLONLY means.
>
> What's so hard to understand? The driver may not be a derivative work, but
> it sure as hell isn't GPL'd.
I hope this won't dump me into the flamers filter....but here goes:
If the intent of the GPLONLY export is really to keep the symbol from
being used by non-GPL code then I agree that ndiswrapper shouldn't be
able to use them.
However, you yourself wrote something stating otherwise:
(http://groups.google.ca/group/linux.kernel/msg/0066655bb1be1e4c):
'I think we _can_ do things where we give clear hints to people that "we
think this is such an internal Linux thing that you simply cannot use
this without being considered a derived work".....So I personally don't
see EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() to be a "technical measure", I see it as being
"documentation".'
Under that interpretation, ndiswrapper should be able to make use of
GPLONLY symbols because the binary blobs are clearly not derivative works.
Chris
--
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