[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Input on the Non-GPL Modules
    On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 11:29:57AM -0400, Greg Boyce wrote:
    > However, with the addition of GPL only symbols, you add motivation for
    > conning. Not by end users, but by the developers of binary only
    > modules. If they export the GPL license symbol, they gain access to
    > kernel symbols that they may want to use. Since no code is actually being
    > stolen, would this kind of trick actually cause a licensing violation?

    What about a different way of circumventing the GPL only symbols?

    What prevents the author of a non-GPL module who needs access to a
    GPL-only symbol from writing a small GPLed module which imports the
    GPL-only symbol (this is allowed, because the small module is GPL),
    and exports a basically identical symbol without the GPL-only

    Then he could use this new symbol from his non-GPL module.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:08    [W:0.021 / U:6.728 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site