Garrett: Oracle continue to circumvent EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()
Garrett: Oracle continue to circumvent EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()
Posted May 12, 2014 17:14 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)In reply to: Garrett: Oracle continue to circumvent EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() by khim
Parent article: Garrett: Oracle continue to circumvent EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()
The shim is written for an express purpose of running DTrace. It doesn't have any other significant users. An argument could be made that it's in fact a part of DTrace and thus GPL covers the whole DTrace kernel-space code.
Posted May 12, 2014 18:00 UTC (Mon)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
Posted May 14, 2014 21:13 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
The netwotsit example is crucial here. Here we have a kernel shim (GPL) for the purpose of running windows binaries to drive a network card. I actually can't see any reason here why such a shim shouldn't use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL - the windows code clearly isn't a derivative of the kernel.
If dtrace is the same on both linux and solaris, then the same argument applies. If, however, dtrace has been significantly modified to work on linux (as seems likely), then that argument breaks down. The modifications are a clear indication of "derivativeness", and a shim that use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is a clear attempt to get round the explicit indications of the copyright holders. Should a court agree that dtrace is derivative, then the use of such symbols makes a finding of copyright infringement pretty much a slam-dunk.
Cheers,
Intent indeed counts, but without an actual court case it's impossible to say how much it counts. It's true that shim does not have any other significant users. But it's not important. What's important is other question: could it have other users? Is it well-defined enough for that? And as you guess oponions on that front are quite different.
Garrett: Oracle continue to circumvent EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()
Garrett: Oracle continue to circumvent EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()
Wol