4 ms·
> Yes. It's deliberately gimped because the author of the function decided Freedom™ is more important than functionality and so they hid it behind a license che
by lawl 12y ago
> Yes. It's deliberately gimped because the author of the function decided Freedom™ is more important than functionality and so they hid it behind a license check.
Would have been a good comment without that remark, and almost certainly why you got downvoted. I gave you an upvote anyways, because the link is actually relevant and helpful.
- Dylan16807 12y agoI think that remark makes the comment better. It's ridiculous to claim that a simple timer has relevance to creating a derivative work, and the implication of zealotry in anyone making that claim via EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is appropriate.
- pmjordan 12y agoThe whole reason this is even an issue is the ambiguity of the license on the subject of dynamic linking and what precisely constitutes a derived work. Of course, if Linus wanted proprietary kernel extensions, he should have picked LGPL, but the issue arose long after the license was originally picked (and there being any possibility of changing/clarifying it). Also, no "or any higher version" clause, so the only way this is ever going to be resolved one way or another is in court. FWIW, my impression is GPLv3 wouldn't have helped here either.