lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]
Date
I'd suggest putting a Documentation/GPL-Symbols to explain this.

Then in the "tainted" message, have a pointer to that documentation.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
> [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Scott Preece
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 11:43 AM
> To: Chris Wedgwood
> Cc: Eric Sandeen; Christoph Hellwig; Linus Torvalds; Jeff
> Garzik; Greg KH; Jonathan Corbet; Andrew Morton; Martin
> Bligh; Michael K. Edwards; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more
> Driver core patches for 2.6.19]
>
> On 12/14/06, Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:15:20PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >
> > > Please don't use that name, it strikes me as much more confusing
> > > than EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, even though I agree that _GPL
> doesn't quite
> > > convey what it means, either.
> >
> > Calling internal symbols _INTERNAL is confusing?
>
> I think it's the combination of "INTERNAL" and "EXPORT" that
> seems contradictory - "If it's internal, why are you exporting it?"
>
> I think "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL_ONLY" or "...ONLY UNDER_GPL" would
> make the meaning clearer, but I don't really think the gain
> is worth the pain.
> Anybody using kernel interfaces ought to be able to figure it out.
>
> >
> > But those symbols aren't, they're about internal interfaces
> that might
> > change.
>
> Folks who think this is likely to make a difference in court
> might want to look at
> <http:www.linuxworld.com/news/2006/120806-closed-modules2.html
> > for a litany of court cases that have rejected infringement
> claims where a much sterner effort had been made to hide or
> block use of interfaces.
> The article claims that courts have increasingly found that
> interfacing your code to an existing work is not
> infringement, regardless of what you have to work around to do it.
>
> Of course, that's one author's reading of the case law and
> I'm sure there are others who disagree, but it's something
> you'd want to keep in mind in calculating the expected value
> of a suit...
>
> scott
> -
> 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/

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-12-14 20:53    [W:0.182 / U:7.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site