Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 29 Oct 2001 21:58:08 -0700 | From | TimO <> | Subject | Re: 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 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/
|  |