Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 09:03:56PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
For all I care binary modules can break, but frankly I don't see
how encapsulating a couple of structures and pointers in a new
structure and adding a new argument to existing functions shifts
the decision about how a function should be usable to the namespace
guys. IMO all functions should continue to be usable as before,
as decided by whoever actually wrote them.
...
Even ignoring the fact that it's unclear whether distributing modules
with not GPLv2 compatible licences is legal at all or might bring you in
jail,
Agreed, lets ignore that :)
your statement has an interesting implication:
Stuff like e.g. the EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_alloc) predates the
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL stuff.
Who is considered the author of this code?
And when should he state whether he prefers to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
but wasn't able to use it at that when he wrote it since his code
predates it and is glad to be able to decide this now?
He can state it when he feels like it, I don't see the point.
Authors generally get to decide whether they use EXPORT_SYMBOL
or EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL unless in cases where its really clear-cut
that EXPORT_SYMBOL is inapproriate. But thats a different matter.
If a symbol was OK to be used previously and something using it
would not automatically be considered a derived work, how does
passing &init_net to the function just to make the compiler
happy, avoid BUG_ONs and generally keep things working as before
make it more of a derived work?
--
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]
