[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Input on the Non-GPL Modules
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 11:29:57AM -0400, Greg Boyce wrote:
> However, with the addition of GPL only symbols, you add motivation for
> conning. Not by end users, but by the developers of binary only
> modules. If they export the GPL license symbol, they gain access to
> kernel symbols that they may want to use. Since no code is actually being
> stolen, would this kind of trick actually cause a licensing violation?

What about a different way of circumventing the GPL only symbols?

What prevents the author of a non-GPL module who needs access to a
GPL-only symbol from writing a small GPLed module which imports the
GPL-only symbol (this is allowed, because the small module is GPL),
and exports a basically identical symbol without the GPL-only

Then he could use this new symbol from his non-GPL module.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:08    [W:0.076 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site