Messages in this thread |  | | From | David Woodhouse <> | Subject | Re: Tainted Modules Help Notices | Date | Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:13:03 +0100 |
| |
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/
|  |