|From:||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-osdl.org>|
|To:||David Woodhouse <dwmw2-AT-infradead.org>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] Keys: Export user-defined keyring operations|
|Date:||Wed, 5 Oct 2005 07:50:25 -0700 (PDT)|
|Cc:||Arjan van de Ven <arjan-AT-infradead.org>, David Howells <dhowells-AT-redhat.com>, akpm-AT-osdl.org, Michael C Thompson <mcthomps-AT-us.ibm.com>, keyrings-AT-linux-nfs.org, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org|
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, David Woodhouse wrote: > > What's the point? There can be no difference between the meaning of > EXPORT_SYMBOL() and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() anyway. I've talked to a lawyer or two, and (a) there's an absolutely _huge_ difference and (b) they liked it. The fact is, the law isn't a blind and mindless computer that takes what you say literally. Intent matters a LOT. And using the xxx_GPL() version to show that it's an internal interface is very meaningful indeed. One of the lawyers said that it was a much better approach than trying to make the license explain all the details - codifying the intention in the code itself is not only more flexible, but a lot less likely to be misunderstood. I think both them said that anybody who were to change a xyz_GPL to the non-GPL one in order to use it with a non-GPL module would almost immediately fall under the "willful infringement" thing, and that it would make it MUCH easier to get triple damages and/or injunctions, since they clearly knew about it. I suspect programmers make horrible lawyers. They nitpick on details that sane humans don't. I think programmers often end up forgetting about the fact that human interactions don't work that way. Common sense makes a lot of difference, and DWIM is not just possible, but it's the only thing that matters. Linus
Copyright © 2005, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds