[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, 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.


DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares? (volunteers needed)

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:0.057 / U:2.572 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site