|| ||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-osdl.org>|
|| ||Jason Kingsland <Jason_Kingsland-AT-hotmail.com>|
|| ||Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?|
|| ||Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:58:30 -0800 (PST)|
|| ||Kendall Bennett <KendallB-AT-scitechsoft.com>,
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jason Kingsland wrote:
> > - anything that has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal
> > Linux behaviour is clearly a derived work. If you need to muck around
> > with core code, you're derived, no question about it.
> If that is the case, why the introduction of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and
It is really just documentation.
This is exactly so that it is more clear which cases are black-and-white,
and where people shouldn't even have to think about it for a single
second. It still doesn't make the gray area go away, but it limits it a
bit ("if you need this export, you're clearly doing something that
requires the GPL").
Note: since the kernel itself is under the GPL, clearly anybody can modify
the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() line, and remove the _GPL part. That wouldn't be
against the license per se. But it doesn't make a module that needs that
symbol any less needful of the GPL - exactly because the thing is just a
big cluehint rather than anything else.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
to post comments)