David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > To make matters even more annoying the functions for holding and > releasing a namespace are GPL_ONLY :-( I am going to pick on this by itself for a moment without mentioning anything else, so as hopefully not to derail what otherwise sounds like a good technical conversation. So far every time when someone has complained to me about things being GPL_ONLY and I have looked into it, all I have seen is someone trying to come up with a way to release derivative works of the kernel without honoring the terms of the GPLv2. I read through the US Code a while back to see if I could understand what is legaly defined as a derivative work, and my impression at the time was that the FSF is quite conservative in what they consider a derivative work, and probably the scope is much wider. So when people start complaining about things being GPLv2 those are the most annoying bug reports I ever deal with, as almost invariably people just want to take from the community and don't want to work with every one else. It is especially annoying because I have never seen a case where there is a good justification for a kernel export being anything other than GPL_ONLY. That is the kernel's license after all, and if you are using kernel internal functions the chance that your code is not a derivative work is about 0. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
