Re: Input on the Non-GPL Modules

[Jan Niehusmann]

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