Messages in this thread |  | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Non-standard MODULE_LICENSEs in 2.4.13-ac2 | Date | 28 Oct 2001 01:06:15 -0700 |
| |
Followup to: <E15xVcA-0003bG-00@the-village.bc.nu> By author: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > but I think you are confusing intent with implementation. The intent > > (AFAICS) is to mark the kernel tainted ONLY if a closed-source module > > is loaded, rather than to be a "license police" mechanism, especially > > for sources that have been included in the kernel for a long time. > > "BSD" can indicate totally closed source material as well as other stuff >
I was thinking about that, and that doesn't seem right to me -- you can make closed-source derivative works based on BSD but I would typically not refer to them as "BSD" license (think SunOS 4.1 here...)
> > Also Keith is right - if it is GPL compatible BSD code linked with the > kernel then its correct to describe it as Dual BSD/GPL anyway >
I think the idea of making a standard set of macros available is a good idea for two reasons:
a) It avoids mispellings;
b) It makes it possible to apply standard definitions to the codified strings.
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <amsp@zytor.com> - 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/
|  |