[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 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

    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.

    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: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.020 / U:5.524 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site