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

[Måns Rullgård]

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
mru@xxxxxx

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/