I agree with Simon here. I'd personally like to see some form of
GNU GPL Loadable Module Compliance Standard for all loadable modules.
It isn't enough to go with the loose interpretation of the GNU GPL as
it applies to inclusion of header files, system call interfaces,
re-defined function pointers for operations tables, inline functions,
macro #defines, etc.
Who is best qualified to judge whether something must be released
as GPL or not? In addition, are there specific lawyers to speak with
about kernel related GPL concerns before releasing a driver/module?
--Matt
Simon Richter wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> > #include'ing header files is not necessarily ok. Some headers
> > include "inline functions" which is GPL code. Such inclusion in
> > a module makes that module have to comply with GPL.
>
> I think this needs to be resolved ASAP. I don't have kernel sources handy,
> so I cannot tell you whether the functions are actually worth being
> protected (inb/outb doesn't belong to this group really),
>
> Simon
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 21:00:24 EST