From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751606AbXBCUr6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:47:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751621AbXBCUr5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:47:57 -0500 Received: from tmailer.gwdg.de ([134.76.10.23]:36841 "EHLO tmailer.gwdg.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751606AbXBCUr5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:47:57 -0500 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:47:36 +0100 (MET) From: Jan Engelhardt To: David Schwartz cc: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: RE: [PATCH] Ban module license tag string termination trick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Report: Content analysis: 0.0 points, 6.0 required _SUMMARY_ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Feb 3 2007 10:31, David Schwartz wrote: > >The way out of the GPL problem is to make clear that it is *not* a >copyright enforcement scheme So why do we have EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL then, if - there shall be no enforcement (such as requiring modules to carry exactly one MODULE_LICENSE, and it be GPL to access GPL symbols) - EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL can be circumvented by having multiple MODULE_LICENSE and one of those MODULE_LICENSE is ("GPL") [see Bodo's patch] I think Linus has made a stance on the purpose of _GPL [yup, http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/4/84 ], and I interpret his words "if you need this export, you're clearly doing something that requires the GPL" being in conflict with [X]. [X]: """obj-combo += proprietary.o gpldummy.o""" and allowing proprietary.c to use GPL symbols just because the combo.ko file contains at least one MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"). Note IANAL, more a developer, so please don't flame too much. Jan --