On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:45:39PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Thursday, October 25, 2012 01:31:48 PM Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:16:00PM -0700, Andy King wrote: > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(vmci_device_get); > > > > > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() for this, and all other exports? > > > > > > We'd prefer to leave them as vanilla exports. While we're committed > > > to open-sourcing everything, including our non-upstreamed drivers, > > > we don't really have a strong opinion regarding consuming our exports > > > in closed-source (general GPL issues aside). > > > > You can't just say "general GPL issues aside". Honestly, given your > > company's prior actions in regards to Linux kernel drivers and the > > licenses of them, I don't trust them at all. To help gain that trust > > back, marking the exports in this manner will be a great improvement. > > > > To insist otherwise is to only reinforce my doubts, and reduce my > > wanting to even review or accept this code at all. Sorry about that. > > Huh? What are the concerns exactly? I do not really see difference between > EXPORT_SYMBOL() and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(). The code either derivative of the > kernel or it is not and so it either falls under the kernel license or not. I totally agree. In this case, do you think it falls under the kernel license or not? > From out perspective we do not really care what other code might use VMCI, > all our Linux drivers, even if not all are upstream [yet], are GPL. That's nice to hear, although without proof of that, we have to take your word :) thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
