From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761324AbYBCQGV (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Feb 2008 11:06:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754614AbYBCQGK (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Feb 2008 11:06:10 -0500 Received: from hawking.rebel.net.au ([203.20.69.83]:33944 "EHLO hawking.rebel.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755085AbYBCQGH (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Feb 2008 11:06:07 -0500 Message-ID: <47A5E67D.9040804@davidnewall.com> Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:36:21 +1030 From: David Newall User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pekka Enberg CC: Greg KH , Christer Weinigel , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only References: <20080125180232.GA4613@kroah.com> <20080202123710.42df1aa0@weinigel.se> <20080202191930.GA19826@kroah.com> <47A5D9CD.5070001@davidnewall.com> <84144f020802030743j1278ac64j2ee3e2cbc5c3fefc@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <84144f020802030743j1278ac64j2ee3e2cbc5c3fefc@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi David, > > On Feb 3, 2008 5:12 PM, David Newall wrote: > >> By the way, I'm almost certain that the COPYING file is the first, last >> and only document specifying licence conditions, and nothing in that >> prevents a proprietary driver from including a patch that, for example, >> globally replaces ALL GPL-only symbols by the less restrictive ones. >> > > So I am going to assume you're not trolling here (although some of > your snarky remarks make that bit hard). > Thanks. I'm not trolling. Perhaps I was a bit snarky; it's an issue I feel strongly about. (I'm sure others feel just as strongly, but differently.) > And, _if_ you're distributing a derived work that is not under the > GPLv2, you're breaking the law. I think we can agree on this? > Agreed. > As there is some controversy over the definition of derived work > (think Linus' comments on porting a driver or a filesystem from > another operating system here), we use the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > annotations as a big warning sign that what you're doing is likely to > be considered as a derived work. Let's consider a totally original USB driver. There are an infinite number of them, some still to be written. > If the USB developers want to > annotate their code with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, why the hell do you want > to argue about it? Have I the wrong end of the stick? Isn't that mark restricting an interface to GPL _callers_? Isn't it a technical switch that means, "Don't use my software if yours isn't (also) GPL"? As such it's mere political rhetoric, devoid of any binding power. > If you want to > develop for Linux, you're most certainly better off always > distributing your code under the GPLv2 I agree; but let's not disadvantage applications where regulatory requirements prohibit GPL code, nor applications where the proprietor simply chooses to keep the work proprietary. A proprietary module is simply a piece of software. Many people couldn't use Linux if they couldn't run proprietary software on it. > But what I don't understand > is why people insist using the Linux kernel for something it clearly > can never really properly support (proprietary code)? > That's defeatist. Of course the Linux kernel can properly support ("run") proprietary code. It would be a miserable excuse for an operating system if it couldn't.