> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 6:50 PM > To: Jeff Haran > Cc: Guillaume Knispel; Graeme Russ; Sengottuvelan S; Kernel Newbies > Subject: Re: GPL-only symbol Error > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:10:27PM -0800, Jeff Haran wrote: > > But it doesn't do anybody any good to spread misinformation about this > > topic, particularly with regard to what is and isn't legal. > > I agree, please don't continue it, but rather, consult a lawyer if you > have further questions. > > greg k-h You are the one who said it was illegal. To quote your previous post: "It is not legal and companies have gotten into big trouble by trying to do that" I said this: "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." And when I asked you to provide evidence of the legal trouble you mentioned, all you could come up with was allusions to legal disputes regarding a different source package, Samba, which if I understood your response, never even went to trial. No trial, no legal precedent. If anybody might be guilty of spreading of misinformation, it's you. All I have done is expressed personal doubts and asked questions. Maybe doing this would be illegal, maybe it wouldn't be, that's why I said "I don't know if that is legal" but you so far have completely failed to justify your assertion that it is illegal. At least that's my legal layman's personal opinion, Jeff Haran _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
