Re: MODULE_LICENSE and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL

Taral
2001-10-21T20:14:52Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1170 bytes --]

On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 04:22:47PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> You are arguably obtaining services by deception, and possibly also
> violating a content management system.
>
> However the MODULE_LICENSE isn't aimed at people like that. In fact I've had
> totally positive responses from people who ship well known binary modules
> and understand why we want them to get bugs related to their code.
>
> The people bright enough to hack insmod generally are also bright enough to
> realise why its a bad idea.

I'm not arguing against MODULE_LICENSE. I'm arguing against
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. I fully agree with the person who mentioned that
calling certain interfaces "restricted" and basing that restriction on
the licence of the interface user is an abuse of copyright.

More reasonable would be to have header files that looked like this:

#ifndef GPL_COMPATIBLE_LICENSE
#error This header file is restricted to GPL-compatible code only.
#endif

--
Taral <taral@taral.net>
This message is digitally signed. Please PGP encrypt mail to me.
"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't
understand it." -- Florence Ambrose

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 240 bytes --]