On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 11:29:57AM -0400, Greg Boyce wrote:
> However, with the addition of GPL only symbols, you add motivation for
> conning. Not by end users, but by the developers of binary only
> modules. If they export the GPL license symbol, they gain access to
> kernel symbols that they may want to use. Since no code is actually being
> stolen, would this kind of trick actually cause a licensing violation?
What about a different way of circumventing the GPL only symbols?
What prevents the author of a non-GPL module who needs access to a
GPL-only symbol from writing a small GPLed module which imports the
GPL-only symbol (this is allowed, because the small module is GPL),
and exports a basically identical symbol without the GPL-only
restriction?
Then he could use this new symbol from his non-GPL module.
Jan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 23 2001 - 21:00:20 EST