From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754131AbXLCADa (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 19:03:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751907AbXLCADT (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 19:03:19 -0500 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.169]:4856 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751884AbXLCADS (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 19:03:18 -0500 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Stephen Hemminger" , "Alan Cox" Cc: "Mark Lord" , "Eric W. Biederman" , "Greg Kroah-Hartman" , "Greg KH" , "Tejun Heo" , "Linux Containers" , , , , , , "Andrew Morton" , "Herbert Xu" , "David Miller" , "Linus Torvalds" Subject: RE: namespace support requires network modules to say "GPL" Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:02:17 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20071201192341.6750fbdb@the-village.bc.nu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Importance: Normal X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Sun, 02 Dec 2007 16:03:28 -0800 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Sun, 02 Dec 2007 16:03:29 -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > Then init_net needs to be not GPL limited. Sorry, we need to allow > > non GPL network drivers. There is a fine line between keeping the > Why - they aren't exactly likely to be permissible by law Really? What law and/or what clause in the GPL says that derivative works have to be licensed under the GPL? Or does the kernel have some new technique to determine whether or not code has been distributed? As I read the GPL, it only requires you to release something under the GPL if you distribute it. The kernel has no idea whether or not code has been distributed. So if it's enforcing the GPL, it cannot prohibit anything non-distributed code can lawfully do. (Ergo, it's *NOT* *ENFORCING* the GPL.) > > binary seething masses from accessing random kernel functions, > and allowing > > reasonable (but still non GPL) things like ndiswrapper to use network > > device interface. > > Its up to the ndiswrapper authors how the licence their code, but they > should respect how we licence ours. You license yours under the GPL, so they should respect the GPL. It sounds like we're back to where we were years ago. Didn't we already agree that EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL was *NOT* a GPL-enforcement mechanism and had nothing to do with respecting the GPL? After all, if it s a GPL-enforcement mechanism, why is it not a "further restriction" which is prohibited by the GPL? (The GPL contains no restrictions on what code can use what symbols if that code is not distributed, but EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL does.) Are you now claiming that EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to enforce the GPL? DS