Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Fw: signed kernel modules? | Date | Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:53:21 +0100 | From | Matthew Garrett <> |
| |
Richard B. Johnson <root@chaos.analogic.com> wrote:
> If the whole module license issue is truly one of being able > to review the source, then certainly nobody would fear the > inclusion of a "PUBLIC" license string. This would fit the > broad classification of publicly-available sources, not > necessarily just in the "Public domain". For instance, when > a company puts the sources for some driver on it's Web Page, > but doesn't want to have anything to do with Mr. Stallman.
This potentially leds to arguments about whether developers who have seen your publically available code are then tainted. If you don't want anything to do with Mr. Stallman, why not just use a BSD-style license?
-- Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.linux-rutgers.kernel@srcf.ucam.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/
| |