From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754621AbXLCJCb (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 04:02:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751882AbXLCJCS (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 04:02:18 -0500 Received: from swsoft-mipt-nat.sw.ru ([195.214.233.10]:57399 "EHLO iris" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751602AbXLCJCR (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 04:02:17 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 1764 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:02:17 EST Message-ID: <4753BF5A.5030507@sw.ru> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:33:30 +0300 From: "Denis V. Lunev" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071116) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patrick McHardy CC: Adrian Bunk , 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> <47532AD2.8090704@trash.net> In-Reply-To: <47532AD2.8090704@trash.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Patrick McHardy wrote: > 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? We, namely, Pavel Emelyanov and me, if we have some rights as a committers to this staff :), do not mind against change EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL to EXPORT_SYMBOL. Regards, Den