[Discussioni] [FSFE PR][EN] FSFE on AVM vs Cybits: A small computer is still a computer

[Guido Iodice]

Il 24 giugno 2011 16:29, simo <s a ssimo.org> ha scritto:

>> In ambienti corporate mica ci si può affidare alle opinioni.
>
> Vedi che se ci pensi ti rispondi da solo ?
>
> Simo.

appunto. La distinzione tra GPL-only e non , ad esempio, deriva
proprio dalle diversità di vedute dei diversi autori.

What is this about GPLONLY symbols?

    (REG) By default, symbols are exported using EXPORT_SYMBOL, so
they can be used by loadable modules. During the 2.4 series, a new
export directive EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL was added. This is almost the same
thing, except that the symbol can only be accessed by modules which
have a GPL compatible licence (note that this includes dual-licenced
BSD/GPL code). This new directive was added for these reasons:
        To clarify the ambiguous legal ground on which non-GPL
(particularly proprietary) modules lie. A strict reading of the GPL
prohibits loading proprietary modules into the kernel. While Linus has
consistently stated that proprietary modules are allowed (i.e. he has
granted an explicit exemption), it is not clear that he is able to
speak for all developers who have contributed to the Linux kernel.
While many think Linus' edict means that all contributed code falls
under this exemption granted by Linus, not everyone agrees that this
is a legally sound argument. The new EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL directive makes
the licence conditions explicit, and thus removes the legal ambiguity.
        To allow choice for developers who wish, for their own
reasons, to contribute code which cannot be used by proprietary
modules. Just as a developer has the right to distribute code under a
proprietary licence, so too may a developer distribute code under an
anti-proprietary licence (i.e. strict GPL).

da: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/docs/lkml/#s1-19