GPL-only symbol Error

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:05:19AM -0800, Jeff Haran wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg KH [mailto:greg at kroah.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 6:50 PM
> > To: Jeff Haran
> > Cc: Guillaume Knispel; Graeme Russ; Sengottuvelan S; Kernel Newbies
> > Subject: Re: GPL-only symbol Error
> > 
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:10:27PM -0800, Jeff Haran wrote:
> > > But it doesn't do anybody any good to spread misinformation about
> this
> > > topic, particularly with regard to what is and isn't legal.
> > 
> > I agree, please don't continue it, but rather, consult a lawyer if you
> > have further questions.
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> You are the one who said it was illegal. To quote your previous post:
> 
> "It is not legal and companies have gotten into big trouble by trying to
> do that"
> 
> I said this:
> 
> "I've seen others when faced with this who build their own kernels from
> sources just modify the problematic EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()s to
> EXPORT_SYMBOL()s. I don't know if that is legal. I wouldn't do it
> personally. Consult a lawyer before you go down that road."
> 
> And when I asked you to provide evidence of the legal trouble you
> mentioned, all you could come up with was allusions to legal disputes
> regarding a different source package, Samba, which if I understood your
> response, never even went to trial. No trial, no legal precedent.

So you feel that only if something goes to trial, is it considered
"legal"?

If so, sorry, I'm not going to be able to help you out here, as every
company that has done this type of thing, when confronted with it, has
said something to the affect of "oops, you are right, we will fix it."
This kind of makes me assume that this type of statement is correct,
right?

> If anybody might be guilty of spreading of misinformation, it's you.

I have spread no misinformation, again, SAMBA has publicly listed cases
where this type of thing has been held up, the kernel instances of this
are not public just because there was no need to because the companies
involved changed their ways when asked to.

> All I have done is expressed personal doubts and asked questions.
> Maybe doing this would be illegal, maybe it wouldn't be, that's why I
> said "I don't know if that is legal" but you so far have completely
> failed to justify your assertion that it is illegal.

The fact that companies change their behavior is a good indication that
this is not allowed, right?  Otherwise, why would they change?

Anyway, this is going nowhere, the original poster needs to consult
their legal department about this issue, nothing we can do here.

greg k-h