Subject: Re: namespace support requires network modules to say "GPL"

From: Adrian Bunk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 02:14:37 +0100

On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 10:59:46PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 09:03:56PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>...
>> your statement has an interesting implication:
>>
>> Stuff like e.g. the EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_alloc) predates the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL 
>> stuff.
>>
>> Who is considered the author of this code?
>>
>> And when should he state whether he prefers to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL but 
>> wasn't able to use it at that when he wrote it since his code predates it 
>> and is glad to be able to decide this now?
>
> He can state it when he feels like it, I don't see the point.
> Authors generally get to decide whether they use EXPORT_SYMBOL
> or EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL unless in cases where its really clear-cut
> that EXPORT_SYMBOL is inapproriate. But thats a different matter.
>...

You miss my point.

Stuff like sk_alloc was exported to modules before EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL 
existed (it was even exported to modules before EXPORT_SYMBOL existed).

We are talking about code and exports that are at about 12 years old, 
which is at about twice as old as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.

So what should happen in your opinion if e.g. Alan checks which of the 
network code he had written when it was exported a dozen years ago, 
stating that he never wanted it to be available to non-GPL modules?

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed