On the value of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
Posted Oct 8, 2005 11:57 UTC (Sat) by jschrod
In reply to: On the value of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
Parent article: On the value of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
you missed the point; this part of the thread isn't about derived works; it's about the "ship together" clause in the gpl which has nothing to do with "derived work" but with "being independent".
Ah, you mean you never reacted on nchip who wrote ``So it boils back to the "is the binary-only module derived from Linux" argument.'' and you never threatened to sue anybody who distributed a binary-only module because it would be ``a closed-and-shut case.''? Well, go forward, follow-up your strong words and sue Novell.
(and anyway linus didn't say binary modules are allowed, he said the derived work part is a case by case basis)
Exactly my words. Go back and read my post: I never wrote that Linus allows binary-only modules. I wrote that his opinion differs from yours in so far as distribution of binary-only modules are not
a ``closed-and-shut case'' as you wrote. You just agreed to that and make it sound as if it was your opinion in the first place. Go figure, since that's your style of discussion, I'm out now.
to post comments)