Re: Input on the Non-GPL Modules
Rik van Riel (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:38:55 -0200 (BRST)
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Jan Niehusmann wrote:
> 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?
> Then he could use this new symbol from his non-GPL module.
And he'd lose his rights to use Linux by violating the license
he acquired Linux under.
DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares? http://thefreeworld.net/ (volunteers needed)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/