Re: [linux-dvb-maintainer] Re: [PATCH 26/37] dvb: add support for plls used by nxt200x

[Manu Abraham <manu@linuxtv.org>]

Andreas Oberritter wrote:

>On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 03:46 +0400, Manu Abraham wrote:
>  
>
>>We have in the DVB subsystem most of the exported symbols as 
>>EXPORT_SYMBOL itself, rather than EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. I think if this 
>>needs to be changed, we would require a global change of all symbols to 
>>the same to maintain consistency. If you require that change we can have 
>>a change but i would think that the discussions be done with the 
>>relevant copyright holders too, eventhough probably most of the authors 
>>won't have any objection.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't know if I ever contributed code to the DVB subsystem which is
>actually exported, but in case I did, then I am against changing the
>affected EXPORT_SYMBOLs.
>  
>
Since this issue is subject to discussion, i think a consensus can be 
reached, with a discussion with the relevant owners, _if_ it needs to be 
changed. I did not imply that it needs to be changed.

I have personally contributed some code which does EXPORT_SYMBOL, but 
for me changing it to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is acceptable if the general 
consensus is that way, or if there is a valid reason to go either way. I 
don't mind either.

>This would make it impossible to the use source code of most hardware
>vendors for embedded products because they usually have different
>licenses for their "run-on-every-embedded-platform-and-even-on-windows"
>drivers.
>
>Also I remember people telling on lkml that EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL was used
>for new kernel internal code only and I can't see how this applies to
>dvb-pll or any other part of the dvb subsystem which grew up outside the
>kernel tree.
>  
>

AFAIK, the only hardware that exports EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is only the 
budget core, other than that all of the code uses EXPORT_SYMBOL only.

Regards,
Manu