On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 14:22:12 -0400 Josh Boyer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Capitalizing? The patch you posted that uses this symbol is for a GPL > driver so you gain or lose nothing by having this symbol be > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. Are you somehow advocating and getting some sort > of gain by allowing non-GPL modules? If so, I find that unfortunate. > If not, then I guess I don't understand what you mean by capitalizing. One can dislike DRM (even a very weak form such as this) without having a particular desire to go outside the bounds of what it allows. I thought EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL was originally meant to indicate the symbols whose use is likely to be indicitave of code that is, in some copyright-meaningful way, derived from GPL code? I have a hard time seeing that being the case here. If every symbol is made GPL-only, then that just gives the binary-only people[1] more incentive to circumvent the entire mechanism. It loses its meaning. Documentation/DocBook/kernel-hacking.tmpl says, "It implies that the function is considered an internal implementation issue, and not really an interface." -Scott [1] Plus anyone who might want to make a kernel module out of code which is open source, but not under a license the GPLv2 is compatible with. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
