On Feb 3 2007 10:31, David Schwartz wrote:
>
>The way out of the GPL problem is to make clear that it is *not* a
>copyright enforcement scheme
So why do we have EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL then, if
- there shall be no enforcement (such as requiring modules to carry
exactly one MODULE_LICENSE, and it be GPL to access GPL symbols)
- EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL can be circumvented by having multiple
MODULE_LICENSE and one of those MODULE_LICENSE is ("GPL")
[see Bodo's patch]
I think Linus has made a stance on the purpose of _GPL [yup,
http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/4/84 ], and I interpret his words "if you
need this export, you're clearly doing something that requires the GPL"
being in conflict with [X].
[X]: """obj-combo += proprietary.o gpldummy.o""" and allowing
proprietary.c to use GPL symbols just because the combo.ko file contains
at least one MODULE_LICENSE("GPL").
Note IANAL, more a developer, so please don't flame too much.
Jan
--
-
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/
