From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752435AbXLBWAK (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 17:00:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751091AbXLBV7y (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:59:54 -0500 Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:46990 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750914AbXLBV7x (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:59:53 -0500 Message-ID: <47532AD2.8090704@trash.net> Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:59:46 +0100 From: Patrick McHardy User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070828) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Bunk CC: Ben Greear , Stephen Hemminger , Mark Lord , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.osdl.org Subject: Re: namespace support requires network modules to say "GPL" References: <47515D39.9030900@rtr.ca> <20071201111736.297dd99a@freepuppy.rosehill> <20071201163035.321fd554@freepuppy.rosehill> <475227B1.2060802@rtr.ca> <20071201202354.672aed18@freepuppy.rosehill> <47530778.7030605@candelatech.com> <47530FAC.1070804@trash.net> <20071202204356.GN15974@stusta.de> In-Reply-To: <20071202204356.GN15974@stusta.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 09:03:56PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >> For all I care binary modules can break, but frankly I don't see >> how encapsulating a couple of structures and pointers in a new >> structure and adding a new argument to existing functions shifts >> the decision about how a function should be usable to the namespace >> guys. IMO all functions should continue to be usable as before, >> as decided by whoever actually wrote them. >> ... > > Even ignoring the fact that it's unclear whether distributing modules > with not GPLv2 compatible licences is legal at all or might bring you in > jail, Agreed, lets ignore that :) > your statement has an interesting implication: > > Stuff like e.g. the EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_alloc) predates the > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL stuff. > > Who is considered the author of this code? > > And when should he state whether he prefers to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > but wasn't able to use it at that when he wrote it since his code > predates it and is glad to be able to decide this now? He can state it when he feels like it, I don't see the point. Authors generally get to decide whether they use EXPORT_SYMBOL or EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL unless in cases where its really clear-cut that EXPORT_SYMBOL is inapproriate. But thats a different matter. If a symbol was OK to be used previously and something using it would not automatically be considered a derived work, how does passing &init_net to the function just to make the compiler happy, avoid BUG_ONs and generally keep things working as before make it more of a derived work?