lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Module Licensing?
Date
On Monday 29 October 2001 21:58, TimO wrote:
> 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.
>


My apologies for the misinterpretation.
This scheme seems fine as long as driver related symbols are not "GPL" only.


> > Ben
> >
> > > -kw
> > > -
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.105 / U:9.336 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site