From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758292Ab1CCPYD (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:24:03 -0500 Received: from ganesha.gnumonks.org ([213.95.27.120]:44245 "EHLO ganesha.gnumonks.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758190Ab1CCPYB (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:24:01 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 16:23:49 +0100 From: Harald Welte To: Armijn Hemel Cc: Sebastian Gottschall , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James Morris , David Miller , Herbert Xu Subject: Re: changing EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL to EXPORT_SYMBOL in DD-WRT Message-ID: <20110303152349.GL8117@prithivi.gnumonks.org> References: <1299164159.10725.19.camel@hibbert> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1299164159.10725.19.camel@hibbert> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Sebastian, Armijn and others, I can only follow what Armijn has been writing. On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 03:55:59PM +0100, Armijn Hemel wrote: > I noticed that a few hours ago you changed a few lines in the kernel > source of DD-WRT, changing the export from a few symbols from 'GPL only' > to something a lot more permissive: While the ideas and thoughts regarding the legal implications of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL are wide (see e.g. http://lwn.net/Articles/154602/) and there is no precedent as far as I know, there seems general consensus that it _at least_ signifies the explicit intent of the author. By using the _GPL variant, the author unmistakingly indicates: "I consider any use of that symbol to create a derivative work which must again be licensed under GNU GPL" So by modifying a _GPL symbol into the non-GPL variant (and using the code from a non-GPL module), one would clearly violate the intent of the original author. Whether or not that intent of the author is grounded in copyright law may depend on the specific jurisdiction, circumstances and the judge that would make up his mind about it, if such a case ever went to court. I would be interested to hear what DaveM, James Morris and Herbert Xu as the authors of the files in question have to say about such activity. Regards, Harald -- - Harald Welte http://gpl-violations.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)