Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]]
From: Pascal Schmidt
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 19:21:23 EST
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> No it can not, by only using the headers as the functional API for that
> snapshot verson of the kernel release, it is the standard means for
Well, I don't see "standard means for functionality" mentioned anywhere
in the GPL or copyright law (though I'm no expert on that).
If a header contains a macro that expands to real code and a module
has to use that, it means that it absolutely needs that part of kernel
source code to function and then it is a derived work because it
includes GPL'ed code and would not work without it.
> If the macro is require for any driver and or one in the
> kernel to function, and is listed in the headers, it is generally deemed
> to part of the unportected API.
Says who? Who defines what is unprotected API and what is not?
> Again it is very simple declare, all modules which are not GPL and reject
> loading, and we can watch the death of linux as nobody will use it. Again
> who cares, because it started out as fun for a Finn in 1991, and should
> never be of use or value outside of academics.
Well, silly me, I only buy hardware with open source drivers available.
I wouldn't agree that something is good and has to be done just because
it would improve Linux' "success" (I wouldn't define that to be
commercial success, either).
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/