M�ns Rullg�rd wrote:
>Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>>If you make a kernel module that only uses something >>>EXPORT_SYMBOL()'d from the kernel, you are NOT in principle >>>writing a derivative work. If you use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()'d >>>symbols, then you are incurring in (b) above and your >>>kernel module is most certainly a derivative work. >> >>The notion that what is a derivative work changes based on >>whether a symbol was declared with EXPORT_SYMBOL or >>EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL seems undamentally absurd to me. (If >>somebody is reimplementing the Linux kernel API, he might >>just as easily reimplement the "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL" symbols, >>for compatibility with drivers that need them, for example.) > > >Someone could even take the Linux kernel, and replace all >EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL with EXPORT_SYMBOL. I see nothing in the >GPL prohibiting this. Sure, it wouldn't be nice, but it's >legal not to be nice. >
Hmmm. One can argue that the EXPORT_SYMBOL* are copyright grants, and as such can't be "freely edited", just like the comments as
/* this module (C) 1999 Fulana Perez */
that are in the code. Removing such comments *is* illegal, and editing EXPORTs can be, too...
HTH, Massa
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
