Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:39:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:38:41 -0400 Received: from garrincha.netbank.com.br ([200.203.199.88]:49424 "HELO netbank.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:38:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:38:55 -0200 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: Jan Niehusmann Cc: Subject: Re: Input on the Non-GPL Modules In-Reply-To: <20011018183217.A5055@gondor.com> Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Jan Niehusmann wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 11:29:57AM -0400, Greg Boyce wrote: > > However, with the addition of GPL only symbols, you add motivation for > > conning. Not by end users, but by the developers of binary only > > modules. If they export the GPL license symbol, they gain access to > > kernel symbols that they may want to use. Since no code is actually being > > stolen, would this kind of trick actually cause a licensing violation? > > What about a different way of circumventing the GPL only symbols? > Then he could use this new symbol from his non-GPL module. And he'd lose his rights to use Linux by violating the license he acquired Linux under. regards, Rik -- DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares? http://thefreeworld.net/ (volunteers needed) http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - 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/