On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 03:19:00PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>...
>
> This means that ndiswrapper would be considered as a derived work of
> Linux. Since ndiswrapper is under GPL, it would suffer unfairly if the
> meaning of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is extended to restrict GPLed modules
> capable of loading proprietary code into the kernel.
>...
You could always write a tiny GPL-ed wrapper module with the sole
purpose of offering all EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL'ed functions through
EXPORT_SYMBOL'ed wrapper functions.
You are using a gnu.org address for publically stating that trying to
prevent such kinds of wrapping was unfair?
It's not even clear that any modules containing non-GPL'ed code were
legal.
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL shows a pretty clear intention, and offering
functionality provided throug h EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL'ed symbols to
proprietary code sounds very fishy.
> Regards,
> Pavel Roskin
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
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]
