3.17 merge window part 1 [LWN.net]

3.17 merge window part 1

Posted Aug 14, 2014 23:42 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
In reply to: 3.17 merge window part 1 by mlankhorst
Parent article: 3.17 merge window part 1

Hopefully the people pushing for that have seen sense ... (because, as was pointed out in an lwn article, it would have gutted all meaning from EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL).

Because, at the end of the day, that fuss was all about peoples A telling peoples B how peoples B should licence their own code. And in the Open/Free Source communities, we just don't do that ...

If I want my code to be freely available and I have no intention whatsoever of suing over it, then it's damn stupid for my interface to be exported EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (because nobody else can sue over it, and I'm not going to ...)

Cheers,
Wol

to post comments

3.17 merge window part 1

Posted Aug 15, 2014 1:08 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (2 responses)

Well, yeah. The GPL is fundamentally about telling people how to license their own code. That's kind of the point. And merely because your particular code happens to specify EXPORT_SYMBOL() instead of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(), that's irrelevant - the question is whether something using that symbol is a derivative work of the *work as a whole* or not, and if it is then other copyright holders have the right to sue as well.

3.17 merge window part 1

Posted Aug 15, 2014 19:57 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

> then other copyright holders have the right to sue as well.

But they would be suing over THEIR work.

If my primary licence is BSD, then I can put my code in the kernel because it's GPL-compatible.

But it's damn stupid me marking MY modules as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL because I can't sue because it's BSD.

If someone else wants to licence and mark their code EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL then good luck to them. That's their choice, just don't expect me to take that attitude over mine.

Cheers,
Wol

3.17 merge window part 1

Posted Aug 15, 2014 20:02 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

How have you written a derived work of the kernel under a BSD license?