Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 02 Nov 2001 13:52:31 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: 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 > MODULE_CERTIFIED_BY_LINUX_KERNEL_WORKING_GROUP("xxx says it works"). > It would match real meaning much better.
Are VMware kernel modules 100% open source? If yes, then that is appropriate.
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 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/
|  |