Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 04/10] VMCI: device driver implementaton.

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:45:39PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Thursday, October 25, 2012 01:31:48 PM Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:16:00PM -0700, Andy King wrote:
> > > Hi Greg,
> > > 
> > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(vmci_device_get);
> > > > 
> > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() for this, and all other exports?
> > > 
> > > We'd prefer to leave them as vanilla exports.  While we're committed
> > > to open-sourcing everything, including our non-upstreamed drivers,
> > > we don't really have a strong opinion regarding consuming our exports
> > > in closed-source (general GPL issues aside).
> > 
> > You can't just say "general GPL issues aside".  Honestly, given your
> > company's prior actions in regards to Linux kernel drivers and the
> > licenses of them, I don't trust them at all.  To help gain that trust
> > back, marking the exports in this manner will be a great improvement.
> > 
> > To insist otherwise is to only reinforce my doubts, and reduce my
> > wanting to even review or accept this code at all.  Sorry about that.
> 
> Huh? What are the concerns exactly? I do not really see difference between
> EXPORT_SYMBOL() and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(). The code either derivative of the
> kernel or it is not and so it either falls under the kernel license or not.

I totally agree.  In this case, do you think it falls under the kernel
license or not?

> From out perspective we do not really care what other code might use VMCI,
> all our Linux drivers, even if not all are upstream [yet], are GPL.

That's nice to hear, although without proof of that, we have to take
your word :)

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/