Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757771Ab2EGWs3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2012 18:48:29 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:36271 "EHLO mail-ob0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756814Ab2EGWs1 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2012 18:48:27 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87bom0hf0f.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> References: <1333903588-32608-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@frijolero.org> <87bom0hf0f.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 15:48:07 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0Yv8w-SW9ofUkxh0MpanJwp1wjA Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] module: Clarify usage of MODULE_LICENSE() To: Rusty Russell Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tso Ted , Keith Packard , Al Viro , Ralf Baechle , Alan Cox , Arend Van Spriel , David Woodhouse , Stephen Hemminger , "John W. Linville" , Linus Torvalds , Greg Kroah-Hartman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1767 Lines: 45 On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Sun,  8 Apr 2012 09:46:28 -0700, "Luis R. Rodriguez" wrote: >> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" >> >> 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 -- 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/