On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 17:13 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:41:00 +0100, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:56 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > > > Hello! > > > > > > I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs > > > to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available > > > to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. > > > > I suggest you talk to a lawyer and review the general comments about > > binary modules with him (http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/COPYING.modules > > for example). You are writing an addition to linux from scratch, and it > > is generally not considered OK to do that in binary form (I certainly do > > not consider it OK). > > So what about companies like ImageStream who write proprietary Linux network > drivers for their hardware from scratch with no previous ports from another > OS?
Note that "has a previous port" is not enough for me to consider a proprietary driver "ok". Anyway you asked... if your description is accurate then yes I consider those modules (if they are distributed of course) a violation of the license of the code I contributed to the kernel. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
