lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only
    Chris Friesen wrote:
    > Marcel Holtmann wrote:
    >
    >> If the developers say that this symbol can only be used in GPL code (and
    >> with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL it is quite clear) then you have to obey to that
    >> license or don't use this symbol at all.
    >>
    >> If you use that symbol inside non-GPL (meaning you link at runtime) then
    >> you are in violation of the GPL license. We can't make it much clearer.
    >
    > Not necessarily so. The developers feel that any code using that
    > symbol is necessarily a derivative work,

    The problem with that is this: To be derivative, a work has to be
    derived from another work. That's what "derivative" means. Is it by
    prescience that those marking symbols as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL know that
    only things derived from something else are capable of using them?
    Derived from what? The use of a separate module does not make something
    derivative. It makes it a client. Any binding between the two modules
    occurs only at runtime, and is purely ephemeral.

    I make this charge: Some, perhaps much, of the GPL-exported symbols have
    been mislabelled. There is no prescience, and those who labelled them
    such are really trying (and failing) to claim an additional licence
    condition.

    I further make this claim: an attempt to add a licence condition in that
    fashion is illegal, at least it is under various Australian laws, but I
    expect it's a similar story elsewhere. For a start, it's an attempt to
    vary licence conditions after the contract is made, and also without due
    notice. It also attempts to unfairly restrict trade. It's probably
    fraud, in that it purports to be a work provided under GPL, while
    silently claiming a different (and largely unstated) licence.

    The EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL should be removed, because it's based on a lie.
    You cannot know that only GPL works are capable of using the symbol; you
    cannot know that all works that do use it are derivative of something;
    you cannot even say, a priori, what they are derived from.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-02-07 14:39    [W:0.028 / U:0.220 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site