Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 23:01:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 23:01:04 -0500 Received: from cx147940-a.chnd1.az.home.com ([24.1.238.119]:50825 "EHLO newton.cevio.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 23:00:56 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: "Kevin D. Wooten" To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Module Licensing? Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 20:46:35 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01102920463500.03524@newton.cevio.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org After reading the posts about the MODULE_LICENSE macro, I am in disbelief. I was under the impression that one could write a "closed-source" module and distribute it in binary form, and be in compliance. Please tell me I am wrong? We use Linux as a platform for some data acquisition, and we are currently distributing ( in very limited quantity to people who would already have signed an NDA ) modules that currently have no official license as yet. We are researching which license to use, but according to these post's we have almost no choice, Open Source or not at all! -kw - 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/