Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 03:20:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 03:20:33 -0400 Received: from h24-64-71-161.cg.shawcable.net ([24.64.71.161]:22261 "EHLO webber.adilger.int") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 03:20:25 -0400 From: Andreas Dilger Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 01:20:16 -0600 To: Keith Owens Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Non-standard MODULE_LICENSEs in 2.4.13-ac2 Message-ID: <20011027012016.F23590@turbolinux.com> Mail-Followup-To: Keith Owens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <13064.1004153516@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <13064.1004153516@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22i X-GPG-Key: 1024D/0D35BED6 X-GPG-Fingerprint: 7A37 5D79 BF1B CECA D44F 8A29 A488 39F5 0D35 BED6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Oct 27, 2001 13:31 +1000, Keith Owens wrote: > These are the non-standard MODULE_LICENSEs in 2.4.13-ac2, compiling > these as modules will result in a tainted kernel. "BSD without > advertising clause" is not quite good enough for the kernel, that > licence allows for binary only modules. Kernel debuggers insist on > general source availability. > > Since the source is already in the kernel which is distributed as a GPL > work, these sources are effectively dual BSD/GPL. Could the owners > please convert them to "Dual BSD/GPL"? Ah, so Keith has become (self) nominated license God for the kernel? Being included in the kernel source isn't "general source availability"? I can see that you want to make this whole tainted-kernel mess work, but I think you are confusing intent with implementation. The intent (AFAICS) is to mark the kernel tainted ONLY if a closed-source module is loaded, rather than to be a "license police" mechanism, especially for sources that have been included in the kernel for a long time. Rather than make the MODULE_LICENSE() a string that people just fill in (which as your example shows also has problems with spelling and such) you could have a few pre-defined values to make things easier: #define LICENSE_STRING_GPL "GPL" #define LICENSE_STRING_DUAL_BSD_GPL "Dual BSD/GPL" #define LICENSE_STRING_DUAL_MPL_GPL "Dual MPL/GPL" #define LICENSE_STRING_BSD_KERNEL "BSD without advertising clause, kernel source" This not only means we avoid problems with spelling (which will mark a kernel as tainted, even if it says "GNU GPL" or similar, and makes keeping the values consistent between user-space and kernel space easier. A NON-TAINTING license string needs to be added for BSD sources that are part of the kernel. I totally disagree with the assertion that a module has to be "GPL" in order to be "OSS free" especially for sources already in the kernel, so lets not go on a witch hunt for non-GPL licenses in the kernel just to make this tainted stuff work without adding a new license. There is enough animosity between the Linux and GPL camps without more fire for the "GPL is viral, BSD is free" flamewars. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto, \ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?" http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/