Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

From: Måns Rullgård
Date: Mon May 10 2004 - 02:09:01 EST

Rogier Wolff <R.E.Wolff@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 12:30:25PM -0400, Chris Friesen wrote:
>> Marc Boucher wrote:
>> >
>> >Chris,
>> >
>> >people should, before insulting us publicly or make unsubstantiated
>> >claims that we "lie" or engage in "illegal" actions, perhaps consult a
>> >lawyer, and simultaneously use the opportunity to enquire about the
>> >meaning of "slander".
>> The C string library considers a null to terminate the string. You added a
>> null after the "GPL". It appears to me that this is telling the kernel that
>> the module is licensed as "GPL", even though it is obvious to a person
> How about the following:
> The MODULE_LICENCE macro is a technical way of indicating the licence
> to the kernel. There are various ways of putting "comments and remarks"
> about the licence in the source code, but techically, if
> strcmp (MODULE_LICENCE, "GPL") == 0
> then the module is licenced under GPL. (*)

What if my module is licensed under the Grand Proprietary License (GPL)?

Måns Rullgård

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at