Re: [Xen-devel] Hypervisor loadable modules and GPL licensing issues (Was: Re: memory introspection)

[Mihai DonÈu <mihai.dontu@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 17:48:17 +0100 Ian Campbell wrote:
> > Taking GPL as is would have answered my initial question quickly,
> > but some projects (such as the Linux kernel) have opted to add
> > explicit licensing exceptions for certain functions. This is what
> > allowed NVIDIA and ATI (AMD) to provide drivers for their graphic
> > cards on Linux.
> 
> No, it isn't. There is no such licensing exception in the Linux kernel
> for these drivers (if you think there is then please point to the
> specific licensing terms).
> 
> This is murky territory and there are certainly people in the Linux
> development community who believe that these drivers are also in
> violation of the GPL and have publicly stated this on many occasions.
> 
> Again: You need to be talking to your lawyer, not us.
> 

OK. I will not pursue this issue anymore, at least not until I get some
legal advice.

What makes me wonder now (and I hope I don't come across as annoyingly
persistent) is why all the effort in the Linux kernel to categorize
exported symbols with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() and EXPORT_SYMBOL(). Here's a
recent thread that brought it into discussion:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/17/478 .

-- 
Mihai DonÈu

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel