LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
To: "Jan Engelhardt" <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>
Cc: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Ban module license tag string termination trick
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 23:56:43 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKCELOBFAC.davids@webmaster.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0702032136430.13874@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>


> On Feb 3 2007 10:31, David Schwartz wrote:
> >
> >The way out of the GPL problem is to make clear that it is *not* a
> >copyright enforcement scheme
>
> So why do we have EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL then, if
>
>   -  there shall be no enforcement (such as requiring modules to carry
>      exactly one MODULE_LICENSE, and it be GPL to access GPL symbols)
>
>   -  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL can be circumvented by having multiple
>      MODULE_LICENSE and one of those MODULE_LICENSE is ("GPL")
>      [see Bodo's patch]

The same reason we do any other checks. Why don't we let a normal use list
the contents of any directory they want to? Because we believe that allowing
people to do that, in the default shipping configuration, has disadvantages
that outweight the benefits. If someone disagrees, they are free to remove
the check or bypass it or whatever, by then they take those risks.

> I think Linus has made a stance on the purpose of _GPL [yup,
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/4/84 ], and I interpret his words "if you
> need this export, you're clearly doing something that requires the GPL"
> being in conflict with [X].

Exactly. It conveys the opinion of whoever set the tag that they believe it
is difficult to impossible to use that symbol in anything other than a
derived work. It is, to some extent, misnamed because the GPL does not
require all derived work to be placed under the GPL. (For example, a derived
work that is never distributed need not be placed under the GPL.)

> Note IANAL, more a developer, so please don't flame too much.

No, you're dead on.

Why don't we allow a normal user to unlink any file? Because the person who
put in the check to prevent that believes that that's not something you
should be doing. If you *want* to do it, it's your right. But it is also
their right to put in the code that stops you, so that you have to *want* to
do it in order to do it.

The GPL allows me to add code and distribute and it allows you to remove
that same code if you want. If you disagree with my judgment, you may bypass
it at your own risk.

DS



  parent reply	other threads:[~2007-02-04  7:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-10-28  0:41 [PATCH] Blacklist hsfmodem module Alexey Dobriyan
2006-11-01 11:21 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-02-01 21:20   ` [PATCH] Ban module license tag string termination trick Jan Engelhardt
2007-02-01 21:28     ` [m-i-t part] " Jan Engelhardt
2007-02-01 21:55     ` [PATCH] " Randy Dunlap
2007-02-01 22:17     ` Jon Masters
2007-02-01 22:30       ` Trent Waddington
2007-02-01 23:34         ` Auke Kok
2007-02-02  8:24           ` David Schwartz
2007-02-02 10:45             ` Helge Hafting
2007-02-03 18:31               ` David Schwartz
2007-02-03 20:47                 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-02-03 22:21                   ` Alan
2007-02-03 23:32                     ` Jon Masters
2007-02-04  0:05                       ` Alan
2007-02-04  7:56                   ` David Schwartz [this message]
2007-02-07 12:18                 ` Helge Hafting
2007-02-07 18:56                   ` David Schwartz
2007-02-12 15:50                     ` Helge Hafting
2007-02-12 16:42                       ` Alan
2007-02-12 22:37                       ` David Schwartz
2007-02-02  0:17       ` Tomas Carnecky
2007-02-02  0:51         ` Trent Waddington
2007-02-02  2:19           ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2007-02-02  3:12           ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-02-02  6:15             ` Jon Masters
2007-02-02 14:53     ` Paul Rolland
2007-02-02 15:11       ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-02-02 16:53         ` Randy Dunlap
2007-02-02 17:41           ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-02-02 17:49             ` Randy Dunlap
2007-02-02 19:06               ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-02-03  1:12                 ` Randy Dunlap
2007-02-03  1:29                   ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-02-02 18:37         ` Paul Rolland
2007-02-02 19:08           ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-02-04  8:14             ` Paul Rolland

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKCELOBFAC.davids@webmaster.com \
    --to=davids@webmaster.com \
    --cc=jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --subject='RE: [PATCH] Ban module license tag string termination trick' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).