Re: [PATCH v2] module: Clarify usage of MODULE_LICENSE()

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Â8 Apr 2012 09:46:28 -0700, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> While the kernel is GPLv2 individual the MODULE_LICENSE() has allowed for
>> these tag to be used:
>>
>> Â * Dual BSD/GPL
>> Â * Dual MIT/GPL
>> Â * Dual MPL/GPL
>>
>> This is done for historical reasons, namely questioning the compatibilty
>> between the GPL and some old BSD licenses. Some developers and maintainers
>> tend to use assume the macro is also used to help clarify if the module
>> source code could be shared with the BSD family, but that is not the
>> case.
>
> Incorrect. ÂWhen the author clarifies their license it *does* help. ÂIf
> a tag and license text were to disagree, it would muddy the waters.

Heh, OK.. sure...

>> The MODULE_LICENSE() declares the module's license at run time and even for
>> the dual tags the run time license that applies is the GPL.
>
> You're probably correct, but it's very hard to care.

Its good that we seem to care to not care, given that I have avoided
addressing this for eons, but we seem to at least care enough to not
want proprietary derivatives for Linux.

>> If sharing share between Linux and permissive licensed Operating Systems such
>> as the BSDs is desired developers should review the license on the top of
>> each file being considered to be shared.
>
> Of course. ÂBut having both is nice and clear.

Alrighty.

  Luis
--
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/