lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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
restriction?

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

Jan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:08    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans