Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]]

Andre Hedrick
2003-09-14T07:28:15Z

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Erik Andersen wrote:

> On Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 10:32:38PM -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> >
> > Erik,
> >
> > Explain how a symbol in 2.4 which was EXPORT_SYMBOL is now
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL in 2.6 ?
> >
> > When you can explain why the API for functionallity in 2.4 is ripped off
> > like an old lady's purse by a two-bit punk and made nojn-functional in 2.6
> > you may have a point.
>
> It doesn't matter what the symbol is called. I personally agree
> with you on this one point -- changing the symbols to use
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL type naming is deeply stupid.
>
> I think it is stupid because by implication, it suggests that any
> exported symbols lacking such tags are somehow NOT under the GPL.
>
> Per the COPYING file included with each and every copy of the
> kernel, Linux is licensed under the GPL. There are no provisions
> in the linux kernel COPYING statement allowing non-GPL compatible
> binary only closed source kernel modules.

See above, remove the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL crap and then there is no need to
alter or change anything. This restores the original API.

> You are therefore, entitled to abide by the precise terms and
> conditions for copying, distribution and modification for the
> Linux kernel. This entitles you to change symbol names to
> whatever makes you feel happy.
>
> But you are also _required_ to abide by the precise terms and
> conditions for copying, distribution and modification for the
> Linux kernel, which stipulates that unless your code is a "user
> [program] that [uses] kernel services by normal system calls", it
> is a derived work and therefore must abide by the terms of the
> GPL.

Nice, but "derived work" is bogus and we all know it.

> Creating and loading such a symbol renaming module is certainly
> something you are entitled to do. Using that module for
> circumvention of an "effective technological measure" that
> "effectively protects a right of a copyright owner ... in the
> ordinary course of its operation...." could certainly open you to
> legal action here in the USA. I do not hold copyright on any of
> the symbols in question, but someone does, and if they do not take
> kindly to your circumvention device....

See above, which you agree is stupid, make EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL go away and
nobody has to deal with API issues.

> But the DMCA issues are merely an aside to the fundamental
> problem. A problem you have avoided in this thread with
> gratuitous ad hominem attacks, with the "but Billy did it
> first" defence, and similar nonsence.

Nope, you made threats.

> When you are done making noise, please explain how a closed
> source binary only product that runs within the context of the
> Linux kernel is not a derivitive work, per the very definition
> given in the kernel COPYING file that grants you your limited
> rights for copying, distribution and modification.

See above again, nobody has to do anything if the API is restored to it
original format. Thus no changes, no modifications. All of your points
are void.

Cheers,

Andre