Re: PostgreSQL licensed code on Linux

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 3:03 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 02:22:14AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:12 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > It would seem I did follow up with a v3 patch and Rusty noted that although
>> > I may be right, its hard to care [0]. But of relevance here is again if one
>> > of the MODULE_LICENSE() dual tags should be used or the GPL tag. I'll
>> > continue to side recommending with the MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") tag even on
>> > files with permissive licenses, and even if it we haven't clarified this in
>> > documentation as I think scaling these tags further is just silly.
>> >
>> > [0] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/87bom0hf0f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-bcache/msg06048.html
>>
>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-bcache/msg06058.html
>
> For those that are not developers:
>
> The proposed changes referenced in the above URLs take old portions PostgreSQL
> C code which were previously on a larger C file and move them to a new module
> which has the PostgreSQL header. Modules need to have a MODULE_LICENSE() tag,
> and if one is not used the kernel assumes the module is proprietary. The above
> code lacks a MODULE_LICENSE() tag as such currently the driver is proprietary.

Thanks for explaining this for audience.

> Clearly that needs to be fixed before upstreaming.

Yes, that's why Coly deferred the change for getting clear with licenses.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko