linux-kernel - Re: MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")??

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <501BDBEE.60305@cfl.rr.com>
Date:	Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:10:54 -0400
From:	Mark Hounschell <dmarkh@....rr.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC:	Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")??

On 08/03/2012 09:29 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> assumption that that actually meant they were NOT using GPL symbols.
>
> All symbols in the Linux kernel are to GPL code and all linking dynamic
> or otherwise is subject to the GPL licence. That is you need to be able
> to show anything non-free linked with it such as a kernel module is not a
> derivative work.

Why then is there EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and EXPORT_SYMBOL? As long as you have 
them both, one can and will, assume that what you say above is not the intent.

Again, our Linux kernel drivers are and always were GPL and at least partly 
so because of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.

Mark




--
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/