From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from dhost002-89.dex002.intermedia.net ([64.78.20.227]:5945 "EHLO dhost002-89.dex002.intermedia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031099AbXDQPzu (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:55:50 -0400 From: "Jouni Malinen" Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 08:41:46 -0700 To: Dan Williams Cc: "John W. Linville" , Larry Finger , Michael Buesch , Andreas Schwab , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] ieee80211-crypt: Make some TKIP and CCMP error loggingconditional on IEEE80211_DEBUG_DROP Message-ID: <20070417154146.GA22909@devicescape.com> References: <461a68c9.Nx0/XQSxDR1PJhM4%Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> <4623C561.4030201@lwfinger.net> <200704162237.01280.mb@bu3sch.de> <462413AE.9020200@lwfinger.net> <20070417131222.GA8633@tuxdriver.com> <1176819909.26202.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1176819909.26202.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 10:25:08AM -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > What's the rationale for mac80211 _not_ using _GPL exports? I thought > most new exports were pretty much required to be _GPL (otherwise > somebody would NAK it) unless it was really, really necessary that they > weren't. Where is this kind of "requirement" documented? I was under the impression that in general, the authors could decide how the symbols gets exported as far as using _GPL or not is concerned. My personal view on this _GPL in exports is that it is just unnecessary extra complexity in the implementation and there should not be any place for license enforcement in the kernel implementation; this is better left for the license text and things completely outside the source code. As such, I have a preference of not seeing _GPL added to code that is derived from anything I've written. -- Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA