Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:24:28 -0600 | From | "Scott Preece" <> | Subject | Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers |
| |
On 2/15/07, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, v j wrote:
> Personally, I see no real difference between EXPORT_SYMBOL and > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. > If you derive from GPL'ed code, your code is a derived work. ---
I agree with you that there's no difference in law, though I think the difference is that neither creates a derived work. "Derived work" is a very vague notion in law, and the case law on this has varied over time. I think it would be a real crap shoot for both sides to bring this to court, at least in the US.
Note, though, that I DO support the OSS equation and believe that companies *should not* use closed-source modules, whether it's legal or not, except in the very specific case of code that also works with other systems. I think this ethical imperative goes with the nature of the author's gift to the community.
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/
| |