RE: [PATCH] Ban module license tag string termination trick

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Feb 3 2007 10:31, David Schwartz wrote:
>
>The way out of the GPL problem is to make clear that it is *not* a 
>copyright enforcement scheme

So why do we have EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL then, if

  -  there shall be no enforcement (such as requiring modules to carry 
     exactly one MODULE_LICENSE, and it be GPL to access GPL symbols)

  -  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL can be circumvented by having multiple 
     MODULE_LICENSE and one of those MODULE_LICENSE is ("GPL")
     [see Bodo's patch]

I think Linus has made a stance on the purpose of _GPL [yup, 
http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/4/84 ], and I interpret his words "if you 
need this export, you're clearly doing something that requires the GPL" 
being in conflict with [X].

[X]: """obj-combo += proprietary.o gpldummy.o""" and allowing 
proprietary.c to use GPL symbols just because the combo.ko file contains 
at least one MODULE_LICENSE("GPL").

Note IANAL, more a developer, so please don't flame too much.


Jan
-- 
-
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/