Re: Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario

David Woodhouse
2005-12-06T00:41:41Z

On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 15:56 -0800, Tim Bird wrote:
> If the GPL covers interface linkages (whether static or
> dynamic) then EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is redundant. If it does
> not, in all cases, then EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is, as
> an extension to GPL, therefore a GPL violation.

You seem to be agreeing with me to a certain extent. What I'm saying is
that there _can_ be no difference between EXPORT_SYMBOL() and
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(). We might as well stick to one or the other.

As you say -- if the GPL covers modules, EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is redundant.
If it does not, then EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL in itself is a GPL violation.

The point of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, however, is that it is a technical
restriction which needs to be circumvented in order to load a non-GPL
module. That does affect the outcome of a court case when the licence is
violated, and that's why I think we should it throughout.

However, if your lawyers promise you that the court won't rule that the
GPL covers modules, then you have nothing to fear from EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
because (according to your lawyers) the court will rule that it means no
more than EXPORT_SYMBOL does. That's your risk to take; there's no
reason why we should use EXPORT_SYMBOL _anywhere_ until/unless a court
actually makes that ruling.

--
dwmw2