lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Tainted Modules Help Notices
Date

kaos@ocs.com.au said:
> David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> > BSD-licensed modules shouldn't mark the kernel as tainted. If they do,
> > that's surely a bug.

> Any license not listed in include/linux/module.h is not GPL
> compatible. That list is currently (2.4.11)

In the world I live in, the BSD licence without the advertising clause is
GPL compatible.

Hence, the complaint from modutils signifies a bug, either in the wording of
the MODULE_LICENSE tag for the offending module, or in the list of valid
licences. I care not which - that's an implementation issue for you to
decide.

> > The warning should probably read 'Incompatible licence' instead of
> > 'non-GPL', too.

> No. Any license text not approved as GPL compatible is, by
> definition, incompatible.

Er, yes. By definition, incompatible. 'Incompatible' is a good word to use
when warning the user; the problem is not that the licence is non-GPL, but
that is it not _compatible_ with the GPL - now why didn't I think of using
that word?

--
dwmw2


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:08    [W:0.081 / U:4.084 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site