Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]]

[Nick Piggin]

Erik Andersen wrote:

> On Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 12:17:37AM +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
> > Erik Andersen <andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> >
> > > When you are done making noise, please explain how a closed
> > > source binary only product that runs within the context of the
> > > Linux kernel is not a derivitive work and therefore not subject
> > > to the terms of the GPL, per the definition given in the kernel
> > > COPYING file that grants you your limited rights for copying,
> > > distribution and modification.
> > "Because Linus said so".
>
> It does not say "Because Linus said so" in the Linux kernel
> COPYING file, which is the only official document that grants
> legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the kernel.

How about taking the "GPL exported" symbols just as notes which show
their usage is not considered a derivative work by the copyright 
holders? This is what I always thought it was there for. This of course
means someone can't simply add that "note" and expect it to change the
way the copyright holders think of their work.

I don't expect this would do much in court, but isn't that for binary
driver people to worry about because it is granting more rights than
the GPL allows. Maybe it could be written in legalease to give them
more confidence. And it lets open source developers know where they
stand.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/