Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:47:36 +0100 (MET) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH] Ban module license tag string termination trick |
| |
On Feb 3 2007 10:31, David Schwartz wrote: > >The way out of the GPL problem is to make clear that it is *not* a >copyright enforcement scheme
So why do we have EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL then, if
- there shall be no enforcement (such as requiring modules to carry exactly one MODULE_LICENSE, and it be GPL to access GPL symbols)
- EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL can be circumvented by having multiple MODULE_LICENSE and one of those MODULE_LICENSE is ("GPL") [see Bodo's patch]
I think Linus has made a stance on the purpose of _GPL [yup, http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/4/84 ], and I interpret his words "if you need this export, you're clearly doing something that requires the GPL" being in conflict with [X].
[X]: """obj-combo += proprietary.o gpldummy.o""" and allowing proprietary.c to use GPL symbols just because the combo.ko file contains at least one MODULE_LICENSE("GPL").
Note IANAL, more a developer, so please don't flame too much.
Jan -- - 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/
| |