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