From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267869AbUHTSng (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:43:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266925AbUHTSnI (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:43:08 -0400 Received: from the-village.bc.nu ([81.2.110.252]:40841 "EHLO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268667AbUHTSl5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:41:57 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Resolve duplicate/conflicting MODULE_LICENSE tags From: Alan Cox To: Andreas Gruenbacher Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: <1093018564.17135.33.camel@winden.suse.de> References: <1093018564.17135.33.camel@winden.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1093023561.31605.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:39:32 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Gwe, 2004-08-20 at 17:16, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > * drivers/net/ppp_mppe.ko has MODULE_LICENSE("BSD without advertisement > clause"). This is generally considered a GPL compatible license, > and should probably be added to license_is_gpl_compatible(). > > > Are we fine with applying the following patch? This patch destroys the entire value of the module license system unfortunately. I can put any code I like under a BSD license and not give you the source and claim it is BSD licensed. I don't have to give you the source, you can't demand it so anyone can claim that and it would allow arbitary code without taint. Not good at all. For code which is GPL licensed in the kernel but has other licenses we have the tag "GPL and additional rights". This allows us to cover licenses that are GPL compatible and where the GPL version of the rights is in use in the kernel. Alan