GPL-only symbol Error

[Greg Freemyer]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Jeff Haran <jharan at bytemobile.com> wrote:
> Graeme,
>
> Perhaps, but that's not what I asked about. It seems to me the essence of GPL is that it grants people the right to modify GPL sources like the Linux kernel in any way they want so long as they make those changes available to whoever uses the code in the future. I don't see anything in it that prohibits specific changes. So if I take a symbol that in the sources from kernel.org is declared with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(), make a 1 line change that declares it EXPORT_SYMBOL() and put that on a publically available web site, how have I violated GPL?
>
> Let's say I then ship a product that uses that custom kernel and a non-GPL kernel module of my own writing that only works with the custom kernel, how is that prohibited in the GPL license?
>
> Not that I am planning on doing this and I've never done it in the past, but technically it seems that there would be no violation here.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff Haran
>

I assume you know it is against the GPL to remove the license statements.

If I was to write it, the implementation of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() would
have embedded license statements.

Thus if you removed it, you would be removing a license statement and
are in violation of the GPL.

Somehow, I think the kernel legal brains have come up with even better
ideas than I have.

Greg (not KH)