[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Oops on 2.4.13
Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> On 2 Nov 01 at 13:02, Keith Owens wrote:
> > drivers/video/matrox/matroxfb_crtc2.o - no license, needs patch
> > drivers/video/matrox/matroxfb_g450.o - no license, needs patch
> > drivers/video/matrox/matroxfb_maven.o - no license, needs patch
> > drivers/video/matrox/matroxfb_misc.o - no license, needs patch
> They are all GPL-ed. Does it mean that I have to fix that someone
> else changed kernel API during stable serie?

yes, they need MODULE_LICENSE

> P.S.: I still do not understand this MODULE_LICENSE() thing. VMware
> modules will probably contain GPL tag in next release, but kernel
> hackers refuse to look at these reports anyway (I'm not complaining,
> this is their right to ignore these reports; but if they say that they
> are doing that due to non-GPL, they lie). So I think it should be changed
> from MODULE_LICENSE() to
> It would match real meaning much better.

Are VMware kernel modules 100% open source? If yes, then that is

If VMware kernel modules use ANY closed source libraries (foo.a) etc.,
then putting MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") on that source is wrong.

Jeff Garzik | Only so many songs can be sung
Building 1024 | with two lips, two lungs, and one tongue.
MandrakeSoft | - nomeansno

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:6.000 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site