Re: namespace support requires network modules to say "GPL"

Denis V. Lunev
2007-12-03T09:02:31Z

Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 09:03:56PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>
>>> For all I care binary modules can break, but frankly I don't see
>>> how encapsulating a couple of structures and pointers in a new
>>> structure and adding a new argument to existing functions shifts
>>> the decision about how a function should be usable to the namespace
>>> guys. IMO all functions should continue to be usable as before,
>>> as decided by whoever actually wrote them.
>>> ...
>>
>> Even ignoring the fact that it's unclear whether distributing modules
>> with not GPLv2 compatible licences is legal at all or might bring you
>> in jail,
>
> Agreed, lets ignore that :)
>
>> your statement has an interesting implication:
>>
>> Stuff like e.g. the EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_alloc) predates the
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL stuff.
>>
>> Who is considered the author of this code?
>>
>> And when should he state whether he prefers to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
>> but wasn't able to use it at that when he wrote it since his code
>> predates it and is glad to be able to decide this now?
>
>
> He can state it when he feels like it, I don't see the point.
> Authors generally get to decide whether they use EXPORT_SYMBOL
> or EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL unless in cases where its really clear-cut
> that EXPORT_SYMBOL is inapproriate. But thats a different matter.
>
> If a symbol was OK to be used previously and something using it
> would not automatically be considered a derived work, how does
> passing &init_net to the function just to make the compiler
> happy, avoid BUG_ONs and generally keep things working as before
> make it more of a derived work?

We, namely, Pavel Emelyanov and me, if we have some rights as a
committers to this staff :), do not mind against change
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL to EXPORT_SYMBOL.

Regards,
Den