Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 9 Feb 2019 13:11:54 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] module: Cure the MODULE_LICENSE "GPL" vs. "GPL v2"
 bogosity
Message-ID: <20190209121154.GB17668@kroah.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901282105450.1669@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20190129130658.GA19205@linux-8ccs>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901291510060.1513@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20190206172151.56fcce6c@lwn.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1902081649290.2144@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <CAOFm3uE9DakoBsPv6GrSfeHMQOoGsFBj61o-p0YfxmEvjYRsvg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOFm3uE9DakoBsPv6GrSfeHMQOoGsFBj61o-p0YfxmEvjYRsvg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 10:37:17AM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
> > + * states, that the module is licensed under one of the compatible BSD
> > + * license variants. The detailed and correct license information is again
> > + * to be found in the corresponding source files.
> > + *
> >   * There are dual licensed components, but when running with Linux it is the
> >   * GPL that is relevant so this is a non issue. Similarly LGPL linked with GPL
> >   * is a GPL combined work.
> 
> Just to add to your points, I have seen a few times folks create
> out-of-tree modules and use a MODULE_LICENSE "Proprietary" with a
> proper GPL license notice at the top just to ensure that the code
> would not be able to link with and use symbols exported with
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL().

That's very odd, but oh well, people do strange things :)

> This further reinforces the relevance of your argument as
> MODULE_LICENSE can be used also as a pure technical solution that is
> not making any licensing statement. So much so that a rewrite could
> instead use something akin to EXPORT_SYMBOL_PRIVATE/INTERNAL/NON_API (
> as 0 or 1) and MODULE_CAN_USE_PRIVATE/INTERNAL/NON_API_SYMBOLS ( as 0
> or 1) and not deal with anything license-related? After all this is
> mostly a binary flag.

No, let's leave the export symbol stuff as-is for now please.  Let's
just focus on cleaning up this odd string mess so that we can move on to
the larger goal of getting everything in-tree properly classified.

thanks,

greg k-h