Questioning EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()

Yes, and whilst (INAL disclaimer applies) furthermore the term "Derivative works" are intended to give copyright protection to a creative work based on another, with legal systems trying to protect both.

It's not the scenario people are thinking of when they assume derivation as a negative to be feared, but something more like the Android scenario, which may distribute GPL code with it's copyrights protected, be a derivative work, yet have other parts protected.

So, it can be argued even if some blob is "derivative", that doesn't mean the code legally should be GPL-ed. The key is whether it is distributing a modification of GPL-ed code, a hard argument to make if no modificaiton is required to load a binary blob no matter what symbol is used, even if it modifies the non-redistributed memory copy of the kernel that is not breaking GPL. Hence the legal justification of shipping of blobs seperately from distro's but making them available for seperate distribution by repo.

Seems to me, the whole EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL idea is relying on a need to make insufficiently creative modifications to the GPL source, in order to circumvent it, for instance in the "GPL Condom" design pattern.