Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:38:55 -0200 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: Input on the Non-GPL Modules |
| |
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Jan Niehusmann wrote: > 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?
> Then he could use this new symbol from his non-GPL module.
And he'd lose his rights to use Linux by violating the license he acquired Linux under.
regards,
Rik -- DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares? http://thefreeworld.net/ (volunteers needed)
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
- 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/
|  |