Re: Why are BSD-licensed LZ4 symbols GPL exported?

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 16:37 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 08/20/2013 12:38:14 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 18:11 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:19:56PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> > > > Why are the LZ4 symbols being GPL-exported when the LZ4 code is
> > > > BSD-licensed and no substantial changes appear to have been made  
> > when it
> > > > was merged?
> > >
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended an indication that using a symbol is
> > > likely to result in you producing a derived work of the kernel, and  
> > the
> > > kernel as a whole is under the GPL. It has nothing to do with  
> > additional
> > > licenses that individual pieces of code may be available under.
> > 
> > Maybe not.
> > http://www.ifross.org/en/artikel/ongoing-dispute-over-value-exportsymbolgpl-function
> 
> Kernel developers: "We're making symbols that we, as the creators of  
> this project, don't think you can use without the result being a  
> derived work".
> 
> Lawyers: "we're prepared to argue over the definitions of 'that', 'as',  
> 'of', 'this', 'use', and 'the', as long as we're paid by the hour."

Law is certainly a, umm, useful occupation.

> This random speculation outside of a courtroom actually capable of  
> setting precedent strikes you as relevant for what reason?

Because your declarative statement that EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is
"intended [as] an indication that using [the] symbol is likely
to result..." is incomplete.

There are competing histories as to what EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
was intended to do.