Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751495AbVLEX4K (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:56:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751501AbVLEX4K (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:56:10 -0500 Received: from mail-haw.bigfish.com ([12.129.199.61]:2936 "EHLO mail25-haw-R.bigfish.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751495AbVLEX4J (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:56:09 -0500 X-BigFish: V Message-ID: <4394D396.1020102@am.sony.com> Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:56:06 -0800 From: Tim Bird User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Woodhouse CC: arjan@infradead.org, andrew@walrond.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario 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> <1133819684.11280.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1133819684.11280.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1653 Lines: 47 David Woodhouse wrote: > I think it's time to recognise that there's no difference in licensing > terms between EXPORT_SYMBOL() and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(). I disagree. I think that has long since become the intent of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(). If the GPL covers interface linkages (whether static or dynamic) then EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is redundant. If it does not, in all cases, then EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is, as an extension to GPL, therefore a GPL violation. I believe there are cases where an interface could be deemed not coverable by the GPL. Putting EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL around it would be an attempt to extend GPL to where it otherwise might not reach. DISCLAIMER: I'm not speaking for Sony here. Personally I don't believe that most drivers are derivative works of the operating systems they run with, and I don't believe it helps Linux to assert that they are. But, hey, it's not my kernel, and not my plan for world domination. ;-) To the larger argument about supporting binary drivers, all Arjan manages to prove with his post is that, if handled in the worst possible way, support for binary drivers would be a disaster. Who can disagree with that? (I'm really not trolling or trying to start a flame war here. It's just my 2 cents.) Regards, -- Tim ============================= Tim Bird Architecture Group Chair, CE Linux Forum Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Electronics ============================= - 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/