Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964819AbVLEVyt (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2005 16:54:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964820AbVLEVyt (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2005 16:54:49 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:46998 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964819AbVLEVys (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2005 16:54:48 -0500 Subject: Re: Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario From: David Woodhouse To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Andrew Walrond , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1133817888.9356.78.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <1133779953.9356.9.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <200512051826.06703.andrew@walrond.org> <1133817575.11280.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1133817888.9356.78.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:54:44 +0000 Message-Id: <1133819684.11280.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1672 Lines: 34 On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 22:24 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > I think you're wrong on this. Not about thinking it should be reverted > per se, but in the big picture it's not linked to the scenario. One > export more or less doesn't matter at all. Yeah, I suppose that's true to a large extent, but the fact that Linus is actively aiding and abetting a licence violator by reverting this particular symbol from EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() to EXPORT_SYMBOL() sends a very strong message. And it's not one which we should be sending. Linus chose not to collect copyright assignments; therefore this kind of decision isn't his to make. We are bound by the GPL and (GPLv3 aside) we have no practical option to change that -- by royal decree or otherwise. I think it's time to recognise that there's no difference in licensing terms between EXPORT_SYMBOL() and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(). The _only_ difference is that the latter will lead to harsher punishments for violators because it needs to be actively circumvented. We should switch _everything_ to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(). It can't change the licensing question at all -- if binary-only modules were legal before they will _still_ be legal, because we're not allowed to impose additional restrictions anyway. But the change does strengthen the case against anyone found to be in violation of the licence, because they have to deliberately circumvent the protection it implies. -- dwmw2 - 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/