On Saturday 19 August 2006 06:30, Helge Hafting wrote:Not all their source of course, just the source for the derived work.
Now, if someone actually distributes a closed-source module that
circumvents EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, or relies on an accompagnying
open source patch that removes the mechanism, this happens:
1. By doing this, they clearly showed that their module is outside the
gray area of "allowed binary-only modules". They definitively
made a "derived work" and distributed it.
2. Anybody who received this module may now invoke the GPL
(and the force of law, if necessary) to extract the
module source code from the maker. And then this source
can be freely redistributed to all interested.
Actually, you can't just force the vendor to open up all of their source code.
The GPL isn't a contract - it's a license. If a vendor makes a derived work from the Linux kernel and does not GPL-license said derived work, they are indeed violating copyright as the license the GPL provides no longer supports their ability to redistribute.Yes the GPL is a licence. By using the code, they have accepted
However, the court decides what happens to the vendor. The court might force the vendor to open up their code, but to my knowledge this would be breaking brand new ground. I think it is more likely that the plaintiff could be awarded monetary damages and the defendant enjoined from further redistribution.
The charge is not "violating the GPL" (since the GPL is not a contract) -- it's distributing copyrighted materials without a license. See Eben Moglen's discussion on this subject for more details.Interesting text. Seems the FSF takes a 'nicer' approach, and that