From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: Use EXPORT_SYMBOL Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:48:55 -0200 Message-ID: <4F200847.3040806@redhat.com> References: <1326845297-6233-1-git-send-email-rmorell@nvidia.com> <1326845297-6233-2-git-send-email-rmorell@nvidia.com> <20120120180457.GE29824@morell.nvidia.com> <20120121173207.GF3821@phenom.ffwll.local> <20120125123036.70b28393@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <4F2007A8.2080301@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4F2007A8.2080301@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: "Semwal, Sumit" , Robert Morell , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , "sumit.semwal@linaro.org" List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Em 25-01-2012 11:46, Mauro Carvalho Chehab escreveu: > Em 25-01-2012 10:30, Alan Cox escreveu: >>> Technically speaking, is there no way that the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPLed >>> symbols can be used by the binary blobs, possibly with an open-sourced >>> shim which provides the buffer-sharing interface to the binary blobs? >>> Are there any reasons to not consider this approach? >> >> The GPL requires all the code of a work is source. All of it, no shims no >> magic glue. EXPORT_SYMBOL isn't an indication you can use it for binary >> modules. The GPL licence is quite clear on what is covered. > > Agreed. Such patch won't change anything. The discussions, patch reviews, > etc were under the assumption that the code will be GPL'd, plus the > subsystems that are exposed by this interface also assumes that. > Any trials to circumvent it seem to violate Kernel owner's rights. In time, let me rephrase it: Any trial to circumvent it seems to be an attempt to violate Kernel owner's rights. > >> Since you've asked this I'm advised by my lawyer to respond to all such >> assumptions of legality of binary modules... >> >> For a Linux kernel containing any code I own the code is under the GNU >> public license v2 (in some cases or later), I have never given permission >> for that code to be used as part of a combined or derivative work which >> contains binary chunks. I have never said that modules are somehow >> magically outside the GPL and I am doubtful that in most cases a work >> containing binary modules for a Linux kernel is compatible with the >> licensing, although I accept there may be some cases that it is. >> >> Alan > > I second Alan: > For a Linux kernel containing any code I own the code is under the GNU > public license v2 (in a few cases, where explicitly said GPLv2 or later > or dual GNU/BSD), I have never given permission for that code to be > used as part of a combined or derivative work which contains binary chunks. > > Regards, > Mauro.