Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Aug 2006 10:50:01 +0200 (CEST) | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h |
| |
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: > > These are Linux specific operations. > > > > Without an _GPL you are in the grey area where courts have to decide whether > > a module using this would be a derived work according to copyright law in > > $country_of_the_court and therefore has to be GPL. > > > > With the _GPL, everything is clear without any lawyers involved. > > > > Hardly. The _GPL is a hint as to the intent of the author, but it is no more > than a hint. > > My intent here (and I think the intent of the other authors) is not to cause > breakage of things which currently work, so the _GPL is not appropriate for > that reason. Paravirt_ops is a restatement of many interfaces which already > exist in Linux in a non-_GPL form, so making the structure _GPL is effectively
My copy of linux-2.6.18-rc4/COPYING doesn't mention anything about these `non-_GPL' interfaces. It does mention `normal system calls', but AFAIK symbols exported to modules are not syscalls.
> relicensing them.
That's a pretty strong statement...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds - 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/
| |