Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757216AbYA0VwW (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:52:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751777AbYA0VwJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:52:09 -0500 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.154]:62849 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753650AbYA0VwH (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:52:07 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:x-x-sender:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type; b=lgxSOUoXOX7KaFcRyI91VQbywrw/nqUOD5gOYfOJAK4ivQxBPtFQ/0ttVQc9sKwViZH9OBiyKFskETLF6PrYtMFLrbG72OKbmhXieZ5HveXV7sJLzWsnyENDTEpYAGYL1eqOU/Y3jsGNL2fxSAOJhKXXuHgPAcPY7zSqMB72jD0= Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:51:55 +0100 (CET) From: Esben Nielsen X-X-Sender: simlo@frodo.shire To: Steven Rostedt cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, caglar@pardus.org.tr, LKML , RT , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Alan Cox Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc7-rt2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1200336080.318.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200801150237.44029.caglar@pardus.org.tr> <24149.1200455417@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <31516.1200464589@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2413 Lines: 56 On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Esben Nielsen wrote: >> >> Please, tell what in the license forbids me to make a global replacement >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL -> EXPORT_SYMBOL and distribute the result? > > If you want to distribute that code, the authors of that said code > may be able to challenge you in saying that you are enabling a means to > circumvent a way around the license, and hold you liable. Remember, all it > takes is one country with the laws that will grant this complaint. > >> >> For me, on the other hand, it is against the spirit of free software to >> actively make a block for people to do what ever they want with the code >> when they are only doing it to themselves. That includes loading non-GPL >> software into the kernel. The only thing they are not allowed to do is to >> distribute it and in that way "hurt" other people. > > Honestly, I don't care which export it is. The thing is that I derived > that code from someone else. I did not look up the original author of the > code to find out which export they would like it to be. I may be able to > argue that since it was under a LGPL and not a GPL license, I may very > well be able to export it that way. > > I'm taking the safe way out. By exporting it as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, I am > safe either way. By exporting it as EXPORT_SYMBOL without first hearing > from the original author (and getting that in writing), or hearing it from > a lawyer, I may be putting myself at risk. > > Feel free to creating a version of this code and > s/EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL/EXPORT_SYMBOL/ and distribute it. I wont come after > you for that, but at least I know those that would, will go after you and > not me. > > Call me a chicken, I don't care, but I'm just not going to put myself nor > my company I work for, at risk over this issue. > First off, sorry for sounding so harsh and sorry for taking this discussion onto you. It is quite off-topic in this context. It was just a rant about the misconception that adding/removing _GPL to EXPORT_SYMBOL can make non-GPL modules more or less legal. Is is a _political_ issue, not a legal one. Esben > -- Steve > -- 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/