On Tuesday 17 April 2007 17:41, Jouni Malinen wrote: > My personal view on this _GPL in exports is that it is just unnecessary > extra complexity in the implementation and there should not be any place > for license enforcement in the kernel implementation; this is better > left for the license text and things completely outside the source code. > As such, I have a preference of not seeing _GPL added to code that is > derived from anything I've written. I clearly second that opinion and I thought we (the main people working on wireless) had decided to _not_ use GPL syms in mac80211 (was d80211). In my opinion license policy should not be represented in sourcecode. Source is source, license is license. That are two absolutely seperate things to me. For example, if I want to relicense some code (as a copyright holder), I clearly don't want to change sourcecode for this. In fact, I think the GPL suffix is pretty much useless, legal wise. And everybody knows that the kernel is GPLed. So _every_ single symbol is actually a _GPL() symbol. the _GPL() annotation is just redundant and bloats code. Using kernel syms from a non-GPL compatible module is always walking a borderline. Be it for _GPL() or normal syms; Exactly the same issue for both. All IMO, of course. I'm perfectly aware of different people having different opinions on this. ;) -- Greetings Michael. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
