[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux 2.4.17-pre1
On Wed, 28, Nov, 2001 at 06:48:13PM -0500, Robert Love spoke thus..
> On Wed, 2001-11-28 at 18:39, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > use "BSD without advertising clause", which causes the kernel to
> > > be
> > > tainted. Shouldn't fs/nls/*.c use "Dual BSD/GPL" or "GPL" instead?
> >
> > Dual BSD/GPL is the correct one. Not a big issue. Since the GPL
> > allows
> > stuff to be freer than GPL but still GPL its arguably correct too I
> > suspect
> I was waiting for confirmation about the license status...without
> getting into what license is correct and legal, the current
> MODULE_LICENSE value taints the kernel. The attached patch switches
> to
> Dual BSD/GPL.
Do you know what the legal status of the rest of the *.c files in fs/nls
is? There are still quite a few which have no MODULE_LICENSE tag at all
which causes the kernel to be tainted (IMO) incorrectly.


Mark Hymers BLFS Editor
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 13:13    [W:3.050 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site