From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964828AbVLFBUe (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:20:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964897AbVLFBUe (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:20:34 -0500 Received: from mail-haw.bigfish.com ([12.129.199.61]:10655 "EHLO mail28-haw-R.bigfish.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964828AbVLFBUd (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:20:33 -0500 X-BigFish: V Message-ID: <4394E750.8020205@am.sony.com> Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 17:20:16 -0800 From: Tim Bird User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrea Arcangeli CC: David Woodhouse , arjan@infradead.org, andrew@walrond.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario References: <1133779953.9356.9.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <200512051826.06703.andrew@walrond.org> <1133817575.11280.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1133817888.9356.78.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1133819684.11280.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4394D396.1020102@am.sony.com> <20051206005341.GN28539@opteron.random> In-Reply-To: <20051206005341.GN28539@opteron.random> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 03:56:06PM -0800, Tim Bird wrote: > >>If the GPL covers interface linkages (whether static or >>dynamic) then EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is redundant. If it does >>not, in all cases, then EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is, as >>an extension to GPL, therefore a GPL violation. > > The last time I spoke with Linus about this, what I understood can be > described in two points: > > 1) EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is an hint: if you have to circumvent it, there are > high chances that you're creating a derivative of the linux kernel and > in turn there are high chances that you're illegal > > 2) The fact you're illegal or not, has nothing to do with the _GPL tag > in the exports, the illegal usage is when the module create a derivative > of the linux kernel. > > Now I don't know for sure myself (I'm not a lawyer) what is a derivative > of the linux kernel (don't ask me), but the two above points are quite > clear to me. This interpretation puts kernel developers in the position of making the legal decision about which interfaces cause derivate-work risk and which do not. That's hardly a recipe for legal clarity. (Not that legal clarity is a goal of Linux kernel development... :-) Different developers are likely to have different viewpoints on which interfaces pose risks. I guess Linus gets the last call (as usual), so there's some possibility of some amount of uniformity here. Most kernel developers will naturally tend towards making more symbols EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, whether there's valid legal basis for it or not. (Please let me know if there's a lawyer somewhere reviewing the insertion of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPLs) David currently suggests that *all* interfaces be so designated. I suspect he strongly believes that any use of a kernel interface creates a derivative work. I have a different opinion. ... > The _GPL tag is useful as an hint to binary only vendors as as such it > makes perfect sense. Well, if it makes sense to have developers giving out legal advice, then I guess so. ============================= Tim Bird Architecture Group Chair, CE Linux Forum Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Electronics =============================