Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262375AbTIOAQj (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:16:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262402AbTIOAQj (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:16:39 -0400 Received: from mail.hometree.net ([212.34.184.41]:64661 "EHLO mail.hometree.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262375AbTIOAQh (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:16:37 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: not-for-mail From: "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" Newsgroups: hometree.linux.kernel Subject: Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]] Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:16:35 +0000 (UTC) Organization: INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH Message-ID: References: <20030914043716.GA19223@codepoet.org> Reply-To: hps@intermeta.de NNTP-Posting-Host: forge.intermeta.de X-Trace: tangens.hometree.net 1063584995 16318 212.34.184.4 (15 Sep 2003 00:16:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@intermeta.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:16:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Copyright: (C) 1996-2003 Henning Schmiedehausen X-No-Archive: yes User-Agent: nn/6.6.5 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2600 Lines: 53 Andre Hedrick writes: >It is coming and the intent is to return all the stolen symbols. >It is free for anyone to use and enjoy the usage of Linux once again. >So everyone get in line and SUE ME for GPL'ed drivers. [... module code that would re-export GPL-marked symbols as non-GPL-marked snipped ...] Well, generally speaking, you're of course right. You're simply using the loophole of Linus' agreement to binary only modules to use a fully GPL'ed module (which might use the _GPL symbols), then consider the aggregation to be under GPL (IMHO correct) and then consider this aggregation of kernel and your module to be still covered by Linus' agreement (don't know whether this is true. You might want to actually ask Linus himself... ;-) ) IMHO doing so might be the best way to make Linus (as the main copyright holder on the kernel source) to simply revoke the "I won't object to loading binary only modules in the GPL'ed kernel" agreement and simply say "From Kernel 2.6 on, every aggregation of modules in kernel space is considered to be an aggregation in the GPL v2 sense of meaning as covered by the GPL v2. So if you want to load a module, it's code is better be GPL'ed too". In other words: You might force the copyright holder(s) of the Linux kernel to kill your business model dead. Is this really what you want? It's basically the same thing that people do with BitKeeper and Mr. McVoy: Annoy the people that you might depend on long enough and they might stop being friendly to you [1]. You might want to ask yourself if this _really_ is what you want to achieve. ... just my random 0,02 Euro-Cent Henning [1] The people opposing to BK might not use it themselves but they n might be heavily using a project which might not be able to go on without BK because the main developers have stated often enough, that they won't be able to cope with the work load without BK: The Linux kernel. -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH hps@intermeta.de +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/ Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire "Dominate!! Dominate!! Eat your young and aggregate! I have grotty silicon!" -- AOL CD when played backwards (User Friendly - 200-10-15) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/