Hi Jeff, On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Jeff Haran <jharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> -----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. The mere fact that the "gpl-condom" module links to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL functions make it, in and of itself, a GPL module ergo, there is no such thing as a "gpl-condom" module Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
