Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]]

[Pascal Schmidt]

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote:

> No it can not, by only using the headers as the functional API for that
> snapshot verson of the kernel release, it is the standard means for
> functionality.

Well, I don't see "standard means for functionality" mentioned anywhere
in the GPL or copyright law (though I'm no expert on that).

If a header contains a macro that expands to real code and a module
has to use that, it means that it absolutely needs that part of kernel
source code to function and then it is a derived work because it
includes GPL'ed code and would not work without it.

> If the macro is require for any driver and or one in the
> kernel to function, and is listed in the headers, it is generally deemed
> to part of the unportected API.

Says who? Who defines what is unprotected API and what is not?

> Again it is very simple declare, all modules which are not GPL and reject
> loading, and we can watch the death of linux as nobody will use it.  Again
> who cares, because it started out as fun for a Finn in 1991, and should
> never be of use or value outside of academics.

Well, silly me, I only buy hardware with open source drivers available.
I wouldn't agree that something is good and has to be done just because
it would improve Linux' "success" (I wouldn't define that to be
commercial success, either).

-- 
Ciao,
Pascal

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/