Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:32:17 +0200 | From | Jan Niehusmann <> | Subject | Re: 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 restriction?
Then he could use this new symbol from his non-GPL module.
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/
|  |