[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Module Licensing?
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.

> Ben
> >
> > -kw
> > -

-- TimO
No Cool .sig
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 13:12    [W:0.136 / U:1.972 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site