Followup to: <m16ZJNl-000OVeC@amadeus.home.nl>
By author: arjan@fenrus.demon.nl
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.30.0202081632041.16834-100000@ran.antd.nist.gov> you wrote:
>
> > Of course, anyone else would be free to take the code and apply any
> > license whatsoever to it, but my concern is simply what MODULE_LICENSE()
> > line I can legitimately include, if any.
>
> how about
>
> MODULE_LICENSE("Dual GPL/Public Domain");
>
> this would need adding to the proper headers though
>
The thing is ... public domain isn't a license, it's disavowing
copyright. Part of what that means is that someone can take the work
and publish it under their own copyright.
For liability reasons, something that get published in the kernel
probably would have to be recopyrighted by someone else and GPL'd.
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <amsp@zytor.com> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 21:00:23 EST