Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751882AbXBPBYb (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:24:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751860AbXBPBYb (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:24:31 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.175]:14611 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751882AbXBPBYa (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:24:30 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=EnASDkr67aqSjH81XeO7+iqZs7bcPztssBUbZuU+DzdjgDFx3IsUIl3PADf5hnWzLflvIg9EnPxaW1822iEgA2T4Q9PQ2Y43KVtIIdhFFnQFB+bPgQPL9wfFWi1dM58VXPnTiebe45d0K/WVVTbJZkCerlYvxA0Yj9yKNRRmL3A= Message-ID: <7b69d1470702151724q141f074ak8b654f2abd581823@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:24:28 -0600 From: "Scott Preece" To: "Geert Uytterhoeven" Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers Cc: "v j" , "Theodore Tso" , "Dave Jones" , "Linux Kernel Development" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <9b3a62ab0702142115m4ea7d2c0m6869eb64ef3ee14e@mail.gmail.com> <9b3a62ab0702142116n4069e16cl1bc8f546f41d935@mail.gmail.com> <20070215061149.GE15654@redhat.com> <9b3a62ab0702142227j19386132s870a0e745cfbb8d1@mail.gmail.com> <20070215165339.GB5285@thunk.org> <9b3a62ab0702151020k5bd0e4c9w763e1b01288ccc4f@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1126 Lines: 26 On 2/15/07, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, v j wrote: > Personally, I see no real difference between EXPORT_SYMBOL and > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. > If you derive from GPL'ed code, your code is a derived work. --- I agree with you that there's no difference in law, though I think the difference is that neither creates a derived work. "Derived work" is a very vague notion in law, and the case law on this has varied over time. I think it would be a real crap shoot for both sides to bring this to court, at least in the US. Note, though, that I DO support the OSS equation and believe that companies *should not* use closed-source modules, whether it's legal or not, except in the very specific case of code that also works with other systems. I think this ethical imperative goes with the nature of the author's gift to the community. scott - 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/