David Woodhouse wrote:
> I think it's time to recognise that there's no difference in licensing
> terms between EXPORT_SYMBOL() and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL().
I disagree. I think that has long since become the intent
of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL().
If the GPL covers interface linkages (whether static or
dynamic) then EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is redundant. If it does
not, in all cases, then EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is, as
an extension to GPL, therefore a GPL violation.
I believe there are cases where an interface could
be deemed not coverable by the GPL. Putting
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL around it would be an attempt
to extend GPL to where it otherwise might not reach.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not speaking for Sony here. Personally
I don't believe that most drivers are derivative works
of the operating systems they run with, and I don't
believe it helps Linux to assert that they are.
But, hey, it's not my kernel, and not my plan for
world domination. ;-)
To the larger argument about supporting binary drivers,
all Arjan manages to prove with his post is that,
if handled in the worst possible way, support for
binary drivers would be a disaster. Who can disagree
with that?
(I'm really not trolling or trying to start a flame
war here. It's just my 2 cents.)
Regards,
-- Tim
=============================
Tim Bird
Architecture Group Chair, CE Linux Forum
Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Electronics
=============================
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
