On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:56:19PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:17:36PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > ... while some of us consider that as pointless posturing and will refuse > > > to merge such exports regardless. > > > > Can you elaborate why, for those maintainers not aware of such positions? > > *shrug* > > Either one states that all modules are derivative works of the kernel, > period (in which case attaching _GPL to specific exports is completely > pointless), or it's a claim that this specific export is something > special on its own, which is a fairly strong claim, completely unfounded > more often than not. In the worst cases it's the former being misrepresented > as the latter. That only serves to weaken our position in case of copyright > violations, IMO. When obviously BS claims like "encoding and decoding > of UIDs between the numeric values as seen by userland and stored on > filesystem and opaque pointers as used by the userns stuff is so special > that its use alone is sufficient to change whether the code is derivative > of the kernel or not" are thrown around, we end up with weaker protection, > not stronger one. If something like _that_ makes the difference between > derived and non-derived, the former can't be worth much... Great, thanks. This seems to be in alignment with those who have all along said they've used EXPORT_SYMBOL() to mean what EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() users now use it for. Nevertheless -- maintainers should know that some stubborn developers use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() for its technical merit should violators abuse those symbols. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
