On Thu, April 14, 2005 7:21 am, Nick Rout said: > On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 20:47 +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:57, Nick Rout wrote: >> > On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 19:24 +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote: >> > > Apparently the Kernel has suddenly got a >> > > fit of GPL political correctness and now - as of 2.6.10 - won't >> allow >> > > the >> > > insertion of non-gpl kernel modules. No more kernel taint it just >> > > refuses to >> > > do it. [snip]
Here's the best definition of what's happened from the kernel list <quote> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL Some kernel developers are unhappy with providing external interfaces to their code, only to see those interfaces being used by binary only modules. They view it as their work being appropriated. Whether you agree with that view or not is completely irrelevant, the person who owns the copyright decides how their work can be used. EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() allows for new interfaces to be marked as only available to modules with a GPL compatible license. This is independent of the kernel tainting, but obviously takes advantage of MODULE_LICENSE() strings. EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() may only be used for new exported symbols, Linus has spoken. I believe the phrase involved killer penguins with chainsaws for anybody who changed existing exported interfaces. System calls are not affected and cannot be, that is yet another red herring. Anybody who thinks otherwise does not understand the GPL. System calls define how user space code accesses the kernel, nobody pretends that a binary only user space program cannot use a syscall. </quote> So kernel developers may *if they wish* restrict the transfer of information to GPL'd modules, *but only for new interfaces*. Note the *extremely important* reference to killer penguins and chainsaws! Steve -- Windows: Where do you want to go today? MacOS: Where do you want to be tomorrow? Linux: Are you coming or what?
