Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:58:30 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? |
| |
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jason Kingsland wrote: > > - anything that has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal > > Linux behaviour is clearly a derived work. If you need to muck around > > with core code, you're derived, no question about it. > > > If that is the case, why the introduction of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and > MODULE_LICENSE()?
It is really just documentation.
This is exactly so that it is more clear which cases are black-and-white, and where people shouldn't even have to think about it for a single second. It still doesn't make the gray area go away, but it limits it a bit ("if you need this export, you're clearly doing something that requires the GPL").
Note: since the kernel itself is under the GPL, clearly anybody can modify the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() line, and remove the _GPL part. That wouldn't be against the license per se. But it doesn't make a module that needs that symbol any less needful of the GPL - exactly because the thing is just a big cluehint rather than anything else.
Linus - 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/
| |