Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-18 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 17:13 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:41:00 +0100, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:56 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > > > Hello! > > > > > > I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-18 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 17:13 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:41:00 +0100, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:56 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: Hello! I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs to do

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-17 Thread Chris Friesen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:41:00 +0100, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I suggest you talk to a lawyer and review the general comments about binary modules with him (http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/COPYING.modules for example). You are writing an addition to linux

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-17 Thread parker
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:41:00 +0100, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:56 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > > Hello! > > > > I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs > > to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-17 Thread parker
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:41:00 +0100, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:56 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: Hello! I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-17 Thread Chris Friesen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:41:00 +0100, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suggest you talk to a lawyer and review the general comments about binary modules with him (http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/COPYING.modules for example). You are writing an addition to linux

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-14 Thread Alan Cox
> You shouldn't, although many people do. It's a derived work and hence the > GPL is applicable. The only exception we make is for code which was > written for other operating systems and was then ported to Linux. As one of the copyright holders I make no such exception. Its either a derived

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-14 Thread Alan Cox
You shouldn't, although many people do. It's a derived work and hence the GPL is applicable. The only exception we make is for code which was written for other operating systems and was then ported to Linux. As one of the copyright holders I make no such exception. Its either a derived work

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-07 Thread Horst von Brand
"Randy.Dunlap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Chris Friesen wrote: [...] > > If you look at the big chip manufacturers (TI, Maxim, Analog Devices, > > etc.) they publish specs on everything. It would be nice if others did > > the same. > One of the arguments that I have heard is fairly old and

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-07 Thread linux-os
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, jerome lacoste wrote: On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:55:31 -0500 (EST), linux-os <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Chris Friesen wrote: Lee Revell wrote: On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote: It's not like somebody will have some innate commercial advantage

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-07 Thread jerome lacoste
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:55:31 -0500 (EST), linux-os <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Chris Friesen wrote: > > > Lee Revell wrote: > >> On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote: > >> > >>> It's not like somebody will have > >>> some innate commercial advantage over you

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-07 Thread Randy.Dunlap
Chris Friesen wrote: Lee Revell wrote: On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote: It's not like somebody will have some innate commercial advantage over you because they have your driver source code. For a hardware vendor that's not a very compelling argument. Especially compared to

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-07 Thread linux-os
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Chris Friesen wrote: Lee Revell wrote: On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote: It's not like somebody will have some innate commercial advantage over you because they have your driver source code. For a hardware vendor that's not a very compelling argument.

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-07 Thread Chris Friesen
Lee Revell wrote: On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote: It's not like somebody will have some innate commercial advantage over you because they have your driver source code. For a hardware vendor that's not a very compelling argument. Especially compared to what their IP lawyers

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-07 Thread Chris Friesen
Lee Revell wrote: On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote: It's not like somebody will have some innate commercial advantage over you because they have your driver source code. For a hardware vendor that's not a very compelling argument. Especially compared to what their IP lawyers

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-07 Thread linux-os
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Chris Friesen wrote: Lee Revell wrote: On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote: It's not like somebody will have some innate commercial advantage over you because they have your driver source code. For a hardware vendor that's not a very compelling argument.

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-07 Thread Randy.Dunlap
Chris Friesen wrote: Lee Revell wrote: On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote: It's not like somebody will have some innate commercial advantage over you because they have your driver source code. For a hardware vendor that's not a very compelling argument. Especially compared to

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-07 Thread jerome lacoste
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:55:31 -0500 (EST), linux-os [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Chris Friesen wrote: Lee Revell wrote: On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote: It's not like somebody will have some innate commercial advantage over you because they have

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-07 Thread linux-os
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, jerome lacoste wrote: On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:55:31 -0500 (EST), linux-os [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Chris Friesen wrote: Lee Revell wrote: On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote: It's not like somebody will have some innate commercial advantage

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-07 Thread Horst von Brand
Randy.Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Chris Friesen wrote: [...] If you look at the big chip manufacturers (TI, Maxim, Analog Devices, etc.) they publish specs on everything. It would be nice if others did the same. One of the arguments that I have heard is fairly old and debatable as

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-05 Thread Lee Revell
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote: > It's not like somebody will have > some innate commercial advantage over you because they have your > driver source code. For a hardware vendor that's not a very compelling argument. Especially compared to what their IP lawyers are telling

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-05 Thread Lee Revell
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote: It's not like somebody will have some innate commercial advantage over you because they have your driver source code. For a hardware vendor that's not a very compelling argument. Especially compared to what their IP lawyers are telling

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-04 Thread David Woodhouse
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 19:07 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > There will be a GPL'd layer, and it's likely that sysfs interaction will > be on the GPL'd side anyway, for purely technical reasons. Be very careful if distributing your driver in two parts -- a GPL'd part and a part which you claim is

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-04 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 06:30:59AM -0600, Jonathan A. George wrote: >... > ** As noted previously it would be interested to see the opinion of a > U.S. IP lawyer who has conclusively tested the impact of copy right law > where the boundary of what constitutes a derivative work was explicitly >

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-04 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 01:20 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. > > You shouldn't, although many people do. It's a derived work and hence the > GPL is applicable. The only exception we make is for code

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-04 Thread Andrew Morton
Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. You shouldn't, although many people do. It's a derived work and hence the GPL is applicable. The only exception we make is for code which was written for other operating systems and was then ported to

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-04 Thread Andrew Morton
Pavel Roskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. You shouldn't, although many people do. It's a derived work and hence the GPL is applicable. The only exception we make is for code which was written for other operating systems and was then ported to

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-04 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 01:20 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: Pavel Roskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. You shouldn't, although many people do. It's a derived work and hence the GPL is applicable. The only exception we make is for code which was

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-04 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 06:30:59AM -0600, Jonathan A. George wrote: ... ** As noted previously it would be interested to see the opinion of a U.S. IP lawyer who has conclusively tested the impact of copy right law where the boundary of what constitutes a derivative work was explicitly

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-04 Thread David Woodhouse
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 19:07 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: There will be a GPL'd layer, and it's likely that sysfs interaction will be on the GPL'd side anyway, for purely technical reasons. Be very careful if distributing your driver in two parts -- a GPL'd part and a part which you claim is not

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-03 Thread Ben Greear
Pavel Roskin wrote: All I want to do is to have a module that would create subdirectories for some network interfaces under /sys/class/net/*/, which would contain additional parameters for those interfaces. I'm not creating a new subsystem or anything like that. sysctl is not good because the

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-03 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 03:12:59PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > On Iau, 2005-02-03 at 04:54, Zan Lynx wrote: > > So, what's the magic amount of redirection and abstraction that cleanses > > the GPLness, hmm? Who gets to wave the magic wand to say what > > interfaces are GPL-to-non-GPL and which

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-03 Thread Alan Cox
On Iau, 2005-02-03 at 04:54, Zan Lynx wrote: > So, what's the magic amount of redirection and abstraction that cleanses > the GPLness, hmm? Who gets to wave the magic wand to say what > interfaces are GPL-to-non-GPL and which aren't? The "derivative work" distinction in law, which can be quite

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-03 Thread linux-os
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote: What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports symbols to the proprietary

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-03 Thread Jonathan A. George
> ...The EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is a license statement to binary module developers... As noted repeatedly a symbol prefix doesn't appear to carry any legal weight under U.S. law. In fact the GPL copyright notice is appear legally limited to the granting of *copy* *rights* per U.S. copyright law

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-03 Thread Helge Hafting
Zan Lynx wrote: On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 16:30 -0800, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote: What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd)

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-03 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:56 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > Hello! > > I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs > to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available > to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. I

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-03 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:56 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: Hello! I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. I suggest

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-03 Thread Helge Hafting
Zan Lynx wrote: On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 16:30 -0800, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote: What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd)

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-03 Thread Jonathan A. George
snip ...The EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is a license statement to binary module developers... snip As noted repeatedly a symbol prefix doesn't appear to carry any legal weight under U.S. law. In fact the GPL copyright notice is appear legally limited to the granting of *copy* *rights* per U.S.

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-03 Thread linux-os
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote: What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports symbols to the proprietary

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-03 Thread Alan Cox
On Iau, 2005-02-03 at 04:54, Zan Lynx wrote: So, what's the magic amount of redirection and abstraction that cleanses the GPLness, hmm? Who gets to wave the magic wand to say what interfaces are GPL-to-non-GPL and which aren't? The derivative work distinction in law, which can be quite

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-03 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 03:12:59PM +, Alan Cox wrote: On Iau, 2005-02-03 at 04:54, Zan Lynx wrote: So, what's the magic amount of redirection and abstraction that cleanses the GPLness, hmm? Who gets to wave the magic wand to say what interfaces are GPL-to-non-GPL and which aren't?

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-03 Thread Ben Greear
Pavel Roskin wrote: All I want to do is to have a module that would create subdirectories for some network interfaces under /sys/class/net/*/, which would contain additional parameters for those interfaces. I'm not creating a new subsystem or anything like that. sysctl is not good because the

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Kyle Moffett
On Feb 02, 2005, at 23:08, Jonathan A. George wrote: As an observation: The Linux kernel appears to contain the GPL copyright notice. This appears to explicitly releases the right to alter anything in a copy written work which shares that copyright notice. Therefore, all exported symbols would

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 09:54:02PM -0700, Zan Lynx wrote: > So, what's the magic amount of redirection and abstraction that cleanses > the GPLness, hmm? Who gets to wave the magic wand to say what > interfaces are GPL-to-non-GPL and which aren't? Go read the historical posts from Linus that talk

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 08:13:15PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > > I won't open all details, but suppose I want the bridge to handle certain > frames in a special way, just like BPDU frames are handled if STP is > enabled. There is a hook for that already - see br_handle_frame_hook. > The

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Zan Lynx
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 16:30 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote: > > >On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote: > > >> > > >>What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Jonathan A. George
As an observation: The Linux kernel appears to contain the GPL copyright notice. This appears to explicitly releases the right to alter anything in a copy written work which shares that copyright notice. Therefore, all exported symbols would appear to carry equal weight; thus making the

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Jon Masters
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 21:50:49 -0500, Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please consider the benefits to GPL software ;-) Given his @gnu.org posts, I'd suggest he's between a rock and a hard place and can't just do that. Companies don't always understand these arguments :-) On the techical

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Kyle Moffett
On Feb 02, 2005, at 20:13, Pavel Roskin wrote: OK, then the "insufficiency" is inability to set and get additional named variables for network interfaces. I won't open all details, but suppose I want the bridge to handle certain frames in a special way, just like BPDU frames are handled if STP is

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Pavel Roskin
Hi, Joseph! On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Joseph Pingenot wrote: From Pavel Roskin on Wednesday, 02 February, 2005: All I want to do is to have a module that would create subdirectories for some network interfaces under /sys/class/net/*/, which would contain additional parameters for those interfaces. I'm

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote: > >On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote: > >> > >>What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports > >>symbols to the proprietary modules? > > > >Ick,

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Pavel Roskin
Hi, Greg and Patrick! On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote: What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports symbols to the proprietary modules? Ick, no! Please consult with a lawyer before trying this. I know a lot

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Joseph Pingenot
>From Pavel Roskin on Wednesday, 02 February, 2005: >All I want to do is to have a module that would create subdirectories for >some network interfaces under /sys/class/net/*/, which would contain >additional parameters for those interfaces. I'm not creating a new >subsystem or anything like

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote: > > What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports > symbols to the proprietary modules? Ick, no! Please consult with a lawyer before trying this. I know a lot of them consider doing this just as forbidden as

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Patrick Mochel
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Pavel Roskin wrote: > Hello! > > I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs > to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available > to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. > > I have found the

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 05:56:57PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs > to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available > to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. Heh, a

Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Pavel Roskin
Hello! I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. I have found the original e-mail where this change was proposed:

Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Pavel Roskin
Hello! I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. I have found the original e-mail where this change was proposed:

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 05:56:57PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. Heh, a gnu.org

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Patrick Mochel
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Pavel Roskin wrote: Hello! I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. I have found the original

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote: What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports symbols to the proprietary modules? Ick, no! Please consult with a lawyer before trying this. I know a lot of them consider doing this just as forbidden as

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Joseph Pingenot
From Pavel Roskin on Wednesday, 02 February, 2005: All I want to do is to have a module that would create subdirectories for some network interfaces under /sys/class/net/*/, which would contain additional parameters for those interfaces. I'm not creating a new subsystem or anything like that.

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Pavel Roskin
Hi, Greg and Patrick! On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote: What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports symbols to the proprietary modules? Ick, no! Please consult with a lawyer before trying this. I know a lot

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote: What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports symbols to the proprietary modules? Ick, no! Please

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Pavel Roskin
Hi, Joseph! On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Joseph Pingenot wrote: From Pavel Roskin on Wednesday, 02 February, 2005: All I want to do is to have a module that would create subdirectories for some network interfaces under /sys/class/net/*/, which would contain additional parameters for those interfaces. I'm

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Kyle Moffett
On Feb 02, 2005, at 20:13, Pavel Roskin wrote: OK, then the insufficiency is inability to set and get additional named variables for network interfaces. I won't open all details, but suppose I want the bridge to handle certain frames in a special way, just like BPDU frames are handled if STP is

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Jon Masters
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 21:50:49 -0500, Kyle Moffett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please consider the benefits to GPL software ;-) Given his @gnu.org posts, I'd suggest he's between a rock and a hard place and can't just do that. Companies don't always understand these arguments :-) On the techical

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Jonathan A. George
As an observation: The Linux kernel appears to contain the GPL copyright notice. This appears to explicitly releases the right to alter anything in a copy written work which shares that copyright notice. Therefore, all exported symbols would appear to carry equal weight; thus making the

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Zan Lynx
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 16:30 -0800, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote: What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 08:13:15PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: I won't open all details, but suppose I want the bridge to handle certain frames in a special way, just like BPDU frames are handled if STP is enabled. There is a hook for that already - see br_handle_frame_hook. The

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 09:54:02PM -0700, Zan Lynx wrote: So, what's the magic amount of redirection and abstraction that cleanses the GPLness, hmm? Who gets to wave the magic wand to say what interfaces are GPL-to-non-GPL and which aren't? Go read the historical posts from Linus that talk

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Kyle Moffett
On Feb 02, 2005, at 23:08, Jonathan A. George wrote: As an observation: The Linux kernel appears to contain the GPL copyright notice. This appears to explicitly releases the right to alter anything in a copy written work which shares that copyright notice. Therefore, all exported symbols would