[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 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?

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-12-02 23:03    [W:0.023 / U:1.944 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site