Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:05:09 +0000 | From | Mark Hymers <> | Subject | Re: 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
-- Mark Hymers BLFS Editor markh@linuxfromscratch.org - 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/
|  |