Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:04:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:04:45 -0400 Received: from mail3.panix.com ([166.84.0.167]:59347 "HELO mail3.panix.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:04:37 -0400 From: "Roy Murphy" Reply-To: murphy@panix.com To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:05:10 -0500 Subject: Re: MODULE_LICENSE and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL X-Mailer: DMailWeb Web to Mail Gateway 2.6k, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3bceefa6.3cf6.0@panix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 'Twas brillig when Keith Owens scrobe: >EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > >Some kernel developers are unhappy with providing external interfaces >to their code, only to see those interfaces being used by binary only >modules. They view it as their work being appropriated. Whether you >agree with that view or not is completely irrelevant, the person who >owns the copyright decides how their work can be used. The GPL takes its strength and power from Copyright Law. Copyright law allows certain exclusive rights to authors. Among these are: distribution, public performance and the preparation of derivative works. Copyright Law (at least in the US) reserves certain rights to the Public, notably the right to make Fair Uses. Because of Fair Use, the statement above "the person who owns the copyright decides how their work can be used." is demonstrably false in a US Copyright context. Some elements of authorship are copyrightable, other elements are not. One clear exception in US Copyright Law is "methods of operation" which are not copyrightable. The canonical example of this the pattern of a standard transmission shift. The pattern, intimately tied to the manner in which the device is used, has been standardized because its design could be copied and used by all manufacturers. Exported interfaces are "methods of operation" in the sense of US Copyright Law. Copyright Law affords no protection to "methods of operation". The GPL, which gains its strength from Copyright Law, also has no rights in this area. If a GPLed module does not want other code using its interfaces, they should not be exported. This is an example of overreaching copyright control which is just as aggregious as CSS on DVDs. - 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/