Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:30:41 -0500 | From | Taral <> | Subject | Re: MODULE_LICENSE and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL |
| |
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 04:17:02PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > Exported interfaces are "methods of operation" in the sense of US > > Copyright Law. Copyright Law affords no protection to "methods of > > operation". The GPL, which gains its strength from Copyright Law, also > > has no rights in this area. If a GPLed module does not want other code > > using its interfaces, they should not be exported. > > I think you're missing one thing: binary only modules are only allowed > because of an exception license grant Linus made for functions that are > marked EXPORT_SYMBOL(). EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() just says "not part of this > exception grant"....
Fine. I (the hypothetical binary driver maker) will just make two modules -- one which is MODULE_LICENCEd GPL, and the other which is not. The first will re-export your interfaces as unrestricted ones which the second can use. Are we going to start insisting on a transitivity of this restriction? If so, then it's possible that a large number of interfaces might go...
I also think this is somewhat ridiculous. If I (the binary module maker) distribute a program which effectively replicates the functionality of insmod without the licence checking, and distribute that program with my module, am I violating any restrictions? I don't think so, since it's the end-user that ends up linking the kernel to the module. No linked products are actually distributed...
-- Taral <taral@taral.net> This message is digitally signed. Please PGP encrypt mail to me. "Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it." -- Florence Ambrose - 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/
| |