Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: incorrect taint of ndiswrapper | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:55:39 +0100 |
| |
Ar Iau, 2006-10-26 am 15:41 +0100, ysgrifennodd Al Viro: > Could we please decide WTF _GPLONLY *is* and at least remain consistent? > Aside of "method of fighting binary-only modules", that is - this part > is obvious.
It was originally added to mark symbols that are clearly internal only and make a work derivative. It's somewhere expanded to include symbols whose code authors think that a cease and desist is the correct answer to non GPL use.
I can't really help personally on the details there since I'm of the opinion that _GPLONLY while useful doesn't generally make a blind bit of difference as most if not all binary modules are violating the license. (And I'm sure Nvidia's legal counsel disagrees with me at least in public)
Alan
- 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/
| |