![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
David Woodhouse wrote: > I think it's time to recognise that there's no difference in licensing > terms between EXPORT_SYMBOL() and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(). I disagree. I think that has long since become the intent of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(). If the GPL covers interface linkages (whether static or dynamic) then EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is redundant. If it does not, in all cases, then EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is, as an extension to GPL, therefore a GPL violation. I believe there are cases where an interface could be deemed not coverable by the GPL. Putting EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL around it would be an attempt to extend GPL to where it otherwise might not reach. DISCLAIMER: I'm not speaking for Sony here. Personally I don't believe that most drivers are derivative works of the operating systems they run with, and I don't believe it helps Linux to assert that they are. But, hey, it's not my kernel, and not my plan for world domination. ;-) To the larger argument about supporting binary drivers, all Arjan manages to prove with his post is that, if handled in the worst possible way, support for binary drivers would be a disaster. Who can disagree with that? (I'm really not trolling or trying to start a flame war here. It's just my 2 cents.) Regards, -- Tim ============================= Tim Bird Architecture Group Chair, CE Linux Forum Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Electronics ============================= - 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: 2005-12-06 00:59 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||