Re: [PATCH v2] [SCSI] scsi_dh: change scsi_dh_detach export to EXPORT_SYMBOL

From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
	Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [SCSI] scsi_dh: change scsi_dh_detach export to EXPORT_SYMBOL
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:13:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120423001306.040c512b@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120422230156.GA25181@redhat.com>

> Anyway, your no compromises approach is admirable but it doesn't erase
> the fact that all proprietary Linux drivers use EXPORT_SYMBOL code.

People still steal from shops. It doesn't mean we should abolish the idea
of theft.

> So what you're really saying is no proprietary drivers are allowed to be
> loaded into a Linux kernel.

The GPL defines the boundary. Whether it is possible for a work to be
non-derivative and a kernel module is a matter for the lawyers to debate.
If it is derivative however I don't think there is quite so much doubt.

Linus wrote the following

|>"On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Kendall Bennett wrote:
|>
|> I have heard many people reference the fact that the although the Linux
|> Kernel is under the GNU GPL license, that the code is licensed with an
|> exception clause that says binary loadable modules do not have to be
|> under the GPL.
|
|Nope. No such exception exists.
|
|There's a clarification that user-space programs that use the standard
|system call interfaces aren't considered derived works, but even that
|isn't an "exception" - it's just a statement of a border of what is
|clearly considered a "derived work". User programs are _clearly_ not
|derived works of the kernel, and as such whatever the kernel license is
|just doesn't matter.
|
|And in fact, when it comes to modules, the GPL issue is exactly the same.
|The kernel _is_ GPL. No ifs, buts and maybe's about it. As a result,
|anything that is a derived work has to be GPL'd. It's that simple.

(and then goes on to discuss further his own personal opinion)

http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735

But you still misunderstand the fundamental problem, and this really
needs to be discussed with Red Hat legal.

Alan