It may be a highly unusual choice to license Linux kernel drivers under
LGPL, but at least as long as LGPLv2 or LGPLv2.1 is used, this is fully
GPL compatible and shouldn't taint the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Harald Welte <[email protected]>
---
include/linux/license.h | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
NOTE: I've actually seen this happen in practise, where an embedded
system ships with a LPGL licensed driver which in turn taints the
kernel. I suppose this was not really the intention...
diff --git a/include/linux/license.h b/include/linux/license.h
index decdbf4..9c0df0e 100644
--- a/include/linux/license.h
+++ b/include/linux/license.h
@@ -8,7 +8,10 @@ static inline int license_is_gpl_compatible(const char *license)
|| strcmp(license, "GPL and additional rights") == 0
|| strcmp(license, "Dual BSD/GPL") == 0
|| strcmp(license, "Dual MIT/GPL") == 0
- || strcmp(license, "Dual MPL/GPL") == 0);
+ || strcmp(license, "Dual MPL/GPL") == 0
+ || strcmp(license, "LGPL") == 0
+ || strcmp(license, "LGPL v2") == 0
+ || strcmp(license, "LGPL v2.1") == 0);
}
#endif
--
1.7.10
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 00:24:07 +0200
Harald Welte <[email protected]> wrote:
> It may be a highly unusual choice to license Linux kernel drivers under
> LGPL, but at least as long as LGPLv2 or LGPLv2.1 is used, this is fully
> GPL compatible and shouldn't taint the kernel.
We need to be careful here that people don't think they can use an LGPL
module with a GPL kernel and then use that to load proprietary bits, but
beyond that obvious interpretation point this seems reasonable.