On Iau, 2005-09-01 at 02:33 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[email protected]> you wrote:
> > I mean, nvidia people also use propietary code in the kernel (probably
> > violating the GPL anyway) and don't do such things.
>
> The Linux kernel allows binary drivers, you just have to live with a limited
> number of exported symbols and that the kernel is tainted. Which basically
> means nobody sane can help you with corrupted kernel data structures.
You appear to be confused. The exported symbols are part of a GPL
product. The only question of relevance is whether the item is a derived
work in law or not.
Alan
In article <[email protected]> you wrote:
>> The Linux kernel allows binary drivers, you just have to live with a limited
>> number of exported symbols and that the kernel is tainted. Which basically
>> means nobody sane can help you with corrupted kernel data structures.
>
> You appear to be confused. The exported symbols are part of a GPL
> product. The only question of relevance is whether the item is a derived
> work in law or not.
I dont understand that? Can you point out where I am confused?
Loading a non-GPL (tagged) module leads in tainting the kernel (which basically
is a flag for developers to be alerted while debugging), is that right?
Non GPL Modules are also restrited in the number of symbols they can use,
this is to make it harder to derive work from the Linux Kernel with a ABI
interface.
Gruss
Bernd
On Sad, 2005-09-03 at 23:26 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Loading a non-GPL (tagged) module leads in tainting the kernel (which basically
> is a flag for developers to be alerted while debugging), is that right?
Correct, although some administrators find it useful too
> Non GPL Modules are also restrited in the number of symbols they can use,
> this is to make it harder to derive work from the Linux Kernel with a ABI
> interface.
Non GPL modules are required not to be derivative works (a term of law).
The EXPORT_SYMBOL information is merely advisory to help seperate
symbols. In many cases its purely historical as to whether a symbol is
marked _GPL or not.
If a work is derivative of another GPL work by any means then the GPL
applies to it. If it is not then the GPL has no power over it because
the GPL is a copyright based license. The law itself circumscribes the
power of such licenses and their reach.
And no doubt German law could be totally different.
Alan
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 09:45:31AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Non GPL modules are required not to be derivative works (a term of law).
> The EXPORT_SYMBOL information is merely advisory to help seperate
> symbols. In many cases its purely historical as to whether a symbol is
> marked _GPL or not.
Yes, I agree, I was just not talking about licensing/legal issues, but only
about the visible technical reasons and restrictions.
So I dont think I am confused... thanks for follow up, Alan.
Gruss
Bernd
--
(OO) -- Bernd_Eckenfels@M?rscher_Strasse_8.76185Karlsruhe.de --
( .. ) ecki@{inka.de,linux.de,debian.org} http://www.eckes.org/
o--o 1024D/E383CD7E eckes@IRCNet v:+497211603874 f:+49721151516129
(O____O) When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl!