Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Humberto Massa <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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
> comments as
> /* this module (C) 1999 Fulana Perez */
> that are in the code. Removing such comments *is* illegal, and
> editing EXPORTs can be, too...
It would be, if the license said it was. As it happens, the license
makes no mention of this, but does give explicit permission to make
any modifications desired.