lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: feature request - why not make netif_rx() a pointer?
From
Date
On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 06:30, Slavcho Nikolov wrote:
> In other words, the new routine will not be a derivative of the old one
> or some other part of the kernel.
> Instead, I'll create my own (cleanroom) handler that doesn't reuse any
> existing code, which in the end will either pass control to the GPL routine
> being replaced or destroy the parameters and return.
> I can't see how that is a violation of GPL. If it is, then hundreds of
> Linux startups had better go bankrupt now instead of fighting losing
> legal battles later.

Let me give you an example of what would be illegal.

Using this netif_rx() hook to implement a proprietary TCP stack
to replace the GPL'd one in the kernel right now. And that is exactly
the reason I want any such netif_rx function pointer crap to be
EXPORT_GPL

And before someone, I forget who it was, barks again, EXPORT_GPL has
no legal significance, it is merely an annotation. Whether a symbol
is marked this way or not has no consequence on legal matters.

-
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 13:30    [W:0.045 / U:0.644 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site