Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:59:46 +0100 | From | Patrick McHardy <> | Subject | Re: namespace support requires network modules to say "GPL" |
| |
Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 09:03:56PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >> For all I care binary modules can break, but frankly I don't see >> how encapsulating a couple of structures and pointers in a new >> structure and adding a new argument to existing functions shifts >> the decision about how a function should be usable to the namespace >> guys. IMO all functions should continue to be usable as before, >> as decided by whoever actually wrote them. >> ... > > Even ignoring the fact that it's unclear whether distributing modules > with not GPLv2 compatible licences is legal at all or might bring you in > jail,
Agreed, lets ignore that :)
> your statement has an interesting implication: > > Stuff like e.g. the EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_alloc) predates the > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL stuff. > > Who is considered the author of this code? > > And when should he state whether he prefers to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > but wasn't able to use it at that when he wrote it since his code > predates it and is glad to be able to decide this now?
He can state it when he feels like it, I don't see the point. Authors generally get to decide whether they use EXPORT_SYMBOL or EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL unless in cases where its really clear-cut that EXPORT_SYMBOL is inapproriate. But thats a different matter.
If a symbol was OK to be used previously and something using it would not automatically be considered a derived work, how does passing &init_net to the function just to make the compiler happy, avoid BUG_ONs and generally keep things working as before make it more of a derived work?
| |