[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Non-standard MODULE_LICENSEs in 2.4.13-ac2
Followup to:  <>
By author: Alan Cox <>
In newsgroup:
> > 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


<> at work, <> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." <>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:11    [W:0.091 / U:4.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site