On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Jeff Haran <jha...@bytemobile.com> wrote: > Graeme, > > Perhaps, but that's not what I asked about. It seems to me the essence of GPL > is that it grants people the right to modify GPL sources like the Linux > kernel in any way they want so long as they make those changes available to > whoever uses the code in the future. I don't see anything in it that > prohibits specific changes. So if I take a symbol that in the sources from > kernel.org is declared with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(), make a 1 line change that > declares it EXPORT_SYMBOL() and put that on a publically available web site, > how have I violated GPL? > > Let's say I then ship a product that uses that custom kernel and a non-GPL > kernel module of my own writing that only works with the custom kernel, how > is that prohibited in the GPL license? > > Not that I am planning on doing this and I've never done it in the past, but > technically it seems that there would be no violation here. > > Thanks, > > Jeff Haran >
I assume you know it is against the GPL to remove the license statements. If I was to write it, the implementation of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() would have embedded license statements. Thus if you removed it, you would be removing a license statement and are in violation of the GPL. Somehow, I think the kernel legal brains have come up with even better ideas than I have. Greg (not KH) _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
