On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 03:56:06PM -0800, Tim Bird wrote:
> 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.
The last time I spoke with Linus about this, what I understood can be
described in two points:
1) EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is an hint: if you have to circumvent it, there are
high chances that you're creating a derivative of the linux kernel and
in turn there are high chances that you're illegal
2) The fact you're illegal or not, has nothing to do with the _GPL tag
in the exports, the illegal usage is when the module create a derivative
of the linux kernel.
Now I don't know for sure myself (I'm not a lawyer) what is a derivative
of the linux kernel (don't ask me), but the two above points are quite
clear to me.
I always thought the _GPL tag could have no direct legal implications
and Linus confirmed it. The kernel is GPL so everyone can modify the
exports or re-export symbols as usual, the exports are GPL code too. The
guy who re-exports or remove a _GPL tag is just modifying a GPL code, so
he's ok.
The _GPL tag is useful as an hint to binary only vendors as as such it
makes perfect sense.
-
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]
