> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 2:44 PM > To: Jeff Haran; Sengottuvelan S; Kernel Newbies > Subject: Re: GPL-only symbol Error > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 02:35:24PM -0800, Jeff Haran wrote: > > I've seen others when faced with this who build their own kernels from > > sources just modify the problematic EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()s to > > EXPORT_SYMBOL()s. I don't know if that is legal. I wouldn't do it > > personally. Consult a lawyer before you go down that road. > > It is not legal and companies have gotten into big trouble by trying to > do that, or by creating "gpl-condom" kernel modules that wrap gpl-only > symbols and export them again. Do not do that without the full buy-in > from your legal department as they do not want to hear about it from an > external query first. > Greg, Just curious, can you provide links to these cases? I've read the COPYING file at the top of the Linux source tree. I am not a lawyer, but I don't see anything in it that would prohibit somebody from taking the GPL kernel sources, changing the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()s to EXPORT_SYMBOL()s, publishing that modified kernel source as required by the GPL license but then keep their module source that uses the now non-GPL symbols private. It seems like it should be prohibited in the spirit of open source, but I don't see any mention of these symbol declarations in the license. Thanks, Jeff Haran _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
