On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Tabi Timur-B04825 <b04...@freescale.com> wrote: > Josh Boyer wrote: >> It is not, in my opinion, about what is technically possible and what >> isn't. The kernel is licensed under the GPL. This is a Linux kernel >> only symbol. One would be hard pressed to claim they have a driver >> that wasn't written for Linux that happens to need that symbol. As a >> member of the Linux kernel community, I find it important to encourage >> the contribution of code back to the kernel, and this is one way to >> help that. This isn't BSD. > > Fine, but this goes back to my original question -- if this is how the > community feels, then why hasn't someone posted a patch that converts all > EXPORT_SYMBOL into EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL?
Because of history in a lot of cases, and like all communities, opinions vary. I did say this was my opinion, not a mandate of some sort. > Either we allow non-GPL drivers, or we don't. If we don't, then we need to > eliminate EXPORT_SYMBOL once and for all. Otherwise, the message is > hypocritical. I'd be all for it. I don't think it is as black and white as that though, as nothing rarely is. (we can't even get all the code to adhere to the < 80 column "rule" ). I also don't think it is necessarily hypocritical. This is a new symbol being exported, not one that has been exported for years. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
