On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 09:46:28 -0700, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <[email protected]>
>
> While the kernel is GPLv2 individual the MODULE_LICENSE() has allowed for
> these tag to be used:
>
> * Dual BSD/GPL
> * Dual MIT/GPL
> * 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. When the author clarifies their license it *does* help. If
a tag and license text were to disagree, it would muddy the waters.
> 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.
> 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. But having both is nice and clear.
Cheers,
Rusty.
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Rusty Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 09:46:28 -0700, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <[email protected]>
>>
>> While the kernel is GPLv2 individual the MODULE_LICENSE() has allowed for
>> these tag to be used:
>>
>> * Dual BSD/GPL
>> * Dual MIT/GPL
>> * 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. When the author clarifies their license it *does* help. If
> 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. But having both is nice and clear.
Alrighty.
Luis