Re: MODULE_LICENSE and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL

[David Lang]

so what will the export_symbol_gpl stuff do with the BSD license? it may
or may not have source avilable so is it allowed to use the exported
symbols or not?

for the tainting module process there is the same problem.

knowing the license the code was released under does not tell you if the
source is available or not.

David Lang

 On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:

> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:07:06 +0200
> From: Jan-Benedict Glaw <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: MODULE_LICENSE and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
>
> On Thu, 2001-10-18 11:43:15 -0500, Roy Murphy <[e-mail]>
> wrote in message <[e-mail]>:
> > 'Twas brillig when Arjan van de Ven scrobe:
> > >I think you're missing one thing: binary only modules are only allowed
> > >because of an exception license grant Linus made for functions that are
> > >marked EXPORT_SYMBOL(). EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() just says "not part of
> > >this exception grant"....
> >
> > of the Copyright to the kernel to grant or to restrict.  Does Microsoft have
> > a legal right to disallow any third-party drivers from
> > registering themselves with the OS?  Does Linus?
>
> They do, but they won't use it. They want to *sell* windows and they're
> (more or less) willing to decode their blue screens produced by 3rd
> vendor's drivers. However, GPL people may (or may not) be willing to
> spend time in searching bugs in other company's drivers. However, *I* am
> not willig to do other people's job, especially if *they* earn money
> therefor...
>
> MfG, JBG
>
> --
> Jan-Benedict Glaw . [e-mail] . [phone]
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [e-mail]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>