From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:03:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:03:32 -0400 Received: from tmhoyle.gotadsl.co.uk ([195.149.46.162]:45578 "EHLO mail.cvsnt.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:03:22 -0400 From: tmh@nothing-on.tv (Tony Hoyle) Subject: Re: Input on the Non-GPL Modules Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:08:13 GMT Organization: cvsnt.org news server Message-ID: <3bcf0c42.97910140@tony-home> In-Reply-To: <20011018183217.A5055@gondor.com> X-Trace: sisko.my.home 1003424632 29487 193.37.229.181 (18 Oct 2001 17:03:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@cvsnt.org X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:36:58 +0000 (UTC), Jan Niehusmann wrote: >What prevents the author of a non-GPL module who needs access to a >GPL-only symbol from writing a small GPLed module which imports the >GPL-only symbol (this is allowed, because the small module is GPL), >and exports a basically identical symbol without the GPL-only >restriction? > >Then he could use this new symbol from his non-GPL module. This is still a GPL violation, as the small module couldn't then be linked with the proprietary module. Most companies aren't prepared to get into the legally murky ground that that sort of thing entails. Tony