lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.24-rc7-rt2

> > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 02:37:37 +0200, =?utf-8?q?S=2E=C3=87a=C4=9Flar?= Onur said:
> > > > And because of mcount-add-basic-support-for-gcc-profiler-instrum.patch, closed
> > > > source nvidia-new module cannot be used with this release (mcount is exported
> > > > GPL only), i know this is not supported but i used it with that [2] patch up
> > > > until now without a single problem.
> > >
> > > Playing devil's advocate here - the claim is that EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is to
> > > indicate that code is getting too chummy with Linux internals.
> > >
> > > However, in *this* case, isn't it "code that is too chummy with *GCC* internals",
> > > and thus it isn't our place to say what can and can't be done with code that
> > > is derivative of the GCC compiler? ;)
> >
> > Actually, it got put in there by accident. I usually default all my
> > exports as GPL. But this breaks pretty much everything, so I'll leave it
> > as EXPORT_SYMBOL.
>
> OK, I can live with that. ;)
>

We modified mcount now, and it is derived from an objdump of glibc. So
this is most definitely a "derived" work from glibc. But glibc is licensed
as LGPL, which IIRC allows for non GPL to link to it.

I personally could care less if we use EXPORT_SYMBOL or EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
But I really want to do The Right Thing(tm). I'm not a lawyer and don't
claim that I know anything about the law, but I'm leaning towards the non
_GPL version because the code was from LGPL and not from strict GPL.

-- Steve



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-16 15:15    [W:0.114 / U:1.356 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site