Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964889AbVLFAll (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:41:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964886AbVLFAlY (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:41:24 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:49578 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751570AbVLFAe7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:34:59 -0500 Subject: Re: Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario From: David Woodhouse To: Tim Bird Cc: arjan@infradead.org, andrew@walrond.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <4394D396.1020102@am.sony.com> 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> <4394D396.1020102@am.sony.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:34:55 +0000 Message-Id: <1133829295.11280.66.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: 1524 Lines: 33 On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 15:56 -0800, Tim Bird wrote: > 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. You seem to be agreeing with me to a certain extent. What I'm saying is that there _can_ be no difference between EXPORT_SYMBOL() and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(). We might as well stick to one or the other. As you say -- if the GPL covers modules, EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is redundant. If it does not, then EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL in itself is a GPL violation. The point of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, however, is that it is a technical restriction which needs to be circumvented in order to load a non-GPL module. That does affect the outcome of a court case when the licence is violated, and that's why I think we should it throughout. However, if your lawyers promise you that the court won't rule that the GPL covers modules, then you have nothing to fear from EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL because (according to your lawyers) the court will rule that it means no more than EXPORT_SYMBOL does. That's your risk to take; there's no reason why we should use EXPORT_SYMBOL _anywhere_ until/unless a court actually makes that ruling. -- 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/