From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965185AbVJEOuu (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Oct 2005 10:50:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965193AbVJEOuu (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Oct 2005 10:50:50 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:35050 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965185AbVJEOus (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Oct 2005 10:50:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 07:50:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: David Woodhouse cc: Arjan van de Ven , David Howells , akpm@osdl.org, Michael C Thompson , keyrings@linux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Keys: Export user-defined keyring operations In-Reply-To: <1128519178.3116.16.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <28129.1128509939@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <1128510159.2920.15.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1128519178.3116.16.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, David Woodhouse wrote: > > What's the point? There can be no difference between the meaning of > EXPORT_SYMBOL() and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() anyway. I've talked to a lawyer or two, and (a) there's an absolutely _huge_ difference and (b) they liked it. The fact is, the law isn't a blind and mindless computer that takes what you say literally. Intent matters a LOT. And using the xxx_GPL() version to show that it's an internal interface is very meaningful indeed. One of the lawyers said that it was a much better approach than trying to make the license explain all the details - codifying the intention in the code itself is not only more flexible, but a lot less likely to be misunderstood. I think both them said that anybody who were to change a xyz_GPL to the non-GPL one in order to use it with a non-GPL module would almost immediately fall under the "willful infringement" thing, and that it would make it MUCH easier to get triple damages and/or injunctions, since they clearly knew about it. I suspect programmers make horrible lawyers. They nitpick on details that sane humans don't. I think programmers often end up forgetting about the fact that human interactions don't work that way. Common sense makes a lot of difference, and DWIM is not just possible, but it's the only thing that matters. Linus