Re: [PATCH 2.5.5] do export vmalloc_to_page to modules...

[Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>]

On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 08:11:49PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > The vmalloc_to_page function is been patched into the kernel without any
> > special restriction or requirement for such code, there is not a single
> 
> Untrue.

Please, go ahead and tell me _where_ the conditions for copying and
using such code are been written and why such code licence is different
from map_user_kiobuf. I check the memory.c file in 2.4.19pre5 and
nothing is written about those special restrictions.

> > comment about a change of licence (infact it's probably been cut and
> > pasted from one of the dozen of device drivers doing that by hand
> 
> All of them GPL none of them exporting it to non GPL users. That code is
> and always was GPL. Nor is it an interface for random binary authors. That
> vmalloc handling code took a lot of work, binary authors can go and write

such vmalloc_to_page function takes 5 minutes to rewrite, that's not
lots of work in my vocabulary but anyways "how hard the code is to
write" doesn't matter with the rest of the discussion.

> their own.
> 
> > have the agreement Linus can release a new kernel tarball with the new
> > licence for all the normal kernel code, i.e. pure GPL. But for the core
> 
> Every single line of code I ever submitted to Linus is -pure- GPL. It bears
> a GPL header. That includes my part of the vmalloc_to_page work. It has
> never been available to non GPL modules. You took code I and many others
> own and exposed it as a library for non GPL users. If they use it that way
> they are violating copyright law, and they *will* get cease and desist
> letters.
> 
> Anyone using any code of mine in the kernel with non GPL code does so on
> the basis of the legal doctrine of what is or is not a derivative work,
> and they do so on their own legal assessment. Taking code I am one of the
> authors of and making it convenient for people like veritas to use in non
> GPL code is quite different. Its theft plain and simple.

What is plain and simple is that since you didn't wrote a single line
about it, there cannot be any licence difference between your
vmalloc_to_page in 2.4.19pre5 and map_user_kiobuf.

Furthmore exposing the function to binary only devices, doesn't mean I
will even link a binary only device with it, and nevertheless I won't
because I don't use binary only drivers, but again this is not the main
topic.

Andrea