Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Måns Rullgård wrote:
>Glenn Maynard <email@example.com> writes:
>>>If you make a kernel module that only uses something
>>>EXPORT_SYMBOL()'d from the kernel, you are NOT in principle
>>>writing a derivative work. If you use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()'d
>>>symbols, then you are incurring in (b) above and your
>>>kernel module is most certainly a derivative work.
>>The notion that what is a derivative work changes based on
>>whether a symbol was declared with EXPORT_SYMBOL or
>>EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL seems undamentally absurd to me. (If
>>somebody is reimplementing the Linux kernel API, he might
>>just as easily reimplement the "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL" symbols,
>>for compatibility with drivers that need them, for example.)
>Someone could even take the Linux kernel, and replace all
>EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL with EXPORT_SYMBOL. I see nothing in the
>GPL prohibiting this. Sure, it wouldn't be nice, but it's
>legal not to be nice.
Hmmm. One can argue that the EXPORT_SYMBOL* are copyright
grants, and as such can't be "freely edited", just like the
/* this module (C) 1999 Fulana Perez */
that are in the code. Removing such comments *is* illegal, and
editing EXPORTs can be, too...