[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"

    > > Then init_net needs to be not GPL limited. Sorry, we need to allow
    > > non GPL network drivers. There is a fine line between keeping the

    > Why - they aren't exactly likely to be permissible by law

    Really? What law and/or what clause in the GPL says that derivative works
    have to be licensed under the GPL? Or does the kernel have some new
    technique to determine whether or not code has been distributed?

    As I read the GPL, it only requires you to release something under the GPL
    if you distribute it. The kernel has no idea whether or not code has been
    distributed. So if it's enforcing the GPL, it cannot prohibit anything
    non-distributed code can lawfully do. (Ergo, it's *NOT* *ENFORCING* the

    > > binary seething masses from accessing random kernel functions,
    > and allowing
    > > reasonable (but still non GPL) things like ndiswrapper to use network
    > > device interface.
    > Its up to the ndiswrapper authors how the licence their code, but they
    > should respect how we licence ours.

    You license yours under the GPL, so they should respect the GPL.

    It sounds like we're back to where we were years ago. Didn't we already
    agree that EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL was *NOT* a GPL-enforcement mechanism and had
    nothing to do with respecting the GPL? After all, if it s a GPL-enforcement
    mechanism, why is it not a "further restriction" which is prohibited by the
    GPL? (The GPL contains no restrictions on what code can use what symbols if
    that code is not distributed, but EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL does.)

    Are you now claiming that EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to enforce the GPL?


     \ /
      Last update: 2007-12-03 01:05    [W:0.025 / U:16.968 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site