Alan Cox wrote:
I would like some clarification. Is the above what the whole dispute is about?
A warning message?
I didn't think it was a dispute just someone sounding off. But yes all we
do to "enforce" the module licensing for general usage symbols exported
with EXPORT_SYMBOL() is provide a taint warning.
The message could have implied 'value added' instead, to more accurately
describe the situation.
For deep internal
symbols a kernel module must be GPL or GPL compatibly licensed.
What does that mean? I didn't think you could copyright an interface.
Wasn't that settled long ago in the AT&T vs. BSD lawsuit that made
everyone interested in Linux in the first place while it was happening?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
