Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario | | From | David Woodhouse <> | | Date | Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:34:55 +0000 |
On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 15:56 -0800, Tim Bird wrote: > 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.
You seem to be agreeing with me to a certain extent. What I'm saying is that there _can_ be no difference between EXPORT_SYMBOL() and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(). We might as well stick to one or the other.
As you say -- if the GPL covers modules, EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is redundant. If it does not, then EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL in itself is a GPL violation.
The point of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, however, is that it is a technical restriction which needs to be circumvented in order to load a non-GPL module. That does affect the outcome of a court case when the licence is violated, and that's why I think we should it throughout.
However, if your lawyers promise you that the court won't rule that the GPL covers modules, then you have nothing to fear from EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL because (according to your lawyers) the court will rule that it means no more than EXPORT_SYMBOL does. That's your risk to take; there's no reason why we should use EXPORT_SYMBOL _anywhere_ until/unless a court actually makes that ruling.
-- dwmw2
- 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/
|  |