Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262526AbVBCEyb (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Feb 2005 23:54:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262428AbVBCEya (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Feb 2005 23:54:30 -0500 Received: from zlynx.org ([199.45.143.209]:64776 "EHLO 199.45.143.209") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262844AbVBCEyR (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Feb 2005 23:54:17 -0500 Subject: Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules From: Zan Lynx To: Greg KH Cc: Pavel Roskin , Patrick Mochel , Linux Kernel In-Reply-To: <20050203003010.GA15481@kroah.com> References: <20050202232909.GA14607@kroah.com> <20050203003010.GA15481@kroah.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-c0OvfhsYUEjPxkGB7o+5" Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:54:02 -0700 Message-Id: <1107406442.23059.16.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2270 Lines: 63 --=-c0OvfhsYUEjPxkGB7o+5 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 16:30 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote: > > >On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote: > > >> > > >>What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports > > >>symbols to the proprietary modules? > > > > > >Ick, no! > > > > > >Please consult with a lawyer before trying this. I know a lot of them > > >consider doing this just as forbidden as marking your module > > >MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); when it really isn't. > >=20 > > There will be a GPL'd layer, and it's likely that sysfs interaction wil= l=20 > > be on the GPL'd side anyway, for purely technical reasons. But it does= =20 > > feel like circumvention of the limitations set in the kernel. >=20 > It is. And as such, it is not allowed. [snip] So, what's the magic amount of redirection and abstraction that cleanses the GPLness, hmm? Who gets to wave the magic wand to say what interfaces are GPL-to-non-GPL and which aren't? For example, the IDE drivers use GPL symbols but the VFS does not. So anyone can write a proprietary filesystem which eventually gets around to driving the IDE layer. That is okay, but this isn't? If the trend of making everything _GPL continues, I don't see any choice for binary module vendors but to join together to develop a stable driver API and build it as a GPL/BSD module. Do the same API for BSD systems to prove modules using it are not GPL derived. Watch Greg foam. It'd be fun. -- Zan Lynx --=-c0OvfhsYUEjPxkGB7o+5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCAa5qG8fHaOLTWwgRAlqbAJ92IvBoXRS2Wb31lug7z/PWtmKlkwCePkGe MdXMC81dYKI+R2u3FZTiI+k= =JN/R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-c0OvfhsYUEjPxkGB7o+5-- - 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/