Messages in this thread | | | From | "Kevin D. Wooten" <> | Subject | Re: Module Licensing? | Date | Tue, 30 Oct 2001 00:24:52 -0700 |
| |
On Monday 29 October 2001 21:58, TimO wrote: > Ben Greear wrote: > > "Kevin D. Wooten" wrote: > > > 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! > > > > No, you just can't use certain symbols if you're not GPL. If your > > code already works, then you're fine, as previously existing symbols > > will not be thus restricted... You can just make your MODULE_LICENSE == > > "mine-all-mine...including-all-my-bugs" > > Ugghh! Don't confuse/equate MODULE_LICENSE with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL_ONLY; > two different animals, two differnet goals. See archives for more info. >
My apologies for the misinterpretation. This scheme seems fine as long as driver related symbols are not "GPL" only.
> > Ben > > > > > -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/
| |