Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 6 Dec 2005 01:53:41 +0100 | | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | | Subject | Re: Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario |
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 03:56:06PM -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.
The last time I spoke with Linus about this, what I understood can be described in two points:
1) EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is an hint: if you have to circumvent it, there are high chances that you're creating a derivative of the linux kernel and in turn there are high chances that you're illegal
2) The fact you're illegal or not, has nothing to do with the _GPL tag in the exports, the illegal usage is when the module create a derivative of the linux kernel.
Now I don't know for sure myself (I'm not a lawyer) what is a derivative of the linux kernel (don't ask me), but the two above points are quite clear to me.
I always thought the _GPL tag could have no direct legal implications and Linus confirmed it. The kernel is GPL so everyone can modify the exports or re-export symbols as usual, the exports are GPL code too. The guy who re-exports or remove a _GPL tag is just modifying a GPL code, so he's ok.
The _GPL tag is useful as an hint to binary only vendors as as such it makes perfect sense. - 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/
|  |