Re: Input on the Non-GPL Modules

["M. R. Brown" <mrbrown@0xd6.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1584 bytes --]

* Greg Boyce <gboyce@rakis.net> on Thu, Oct 18, 2001:

> 
> However, with the addition of GPL only symbols, you add motivation for
> conning.  Not by end users, but by the developers of binary only
> modules.  If they export the GPL license symbol, they gain access to
> kernel symbols that they may want to use.  Since no code is actually being
> stolen, would this kind of trick actually cause a licensing violation?
> 

Yeah, but the GPL requires availability of source, so I don't see how they
could get around that (it would no longer be a closed-source module and might
as well be GPL'd).

Hmm, does MODULE_LICENSE() actually state that the module is covered under
the GPL?  If not, could something like this work?

--- module.h.orig	Thu Oct 18 10:56:09 2001
+++ module.h	Thu Oct 18 10:58:43 2001
@@ -286,7 +286,11 @@
  
 #define MODULE_LICENSE(license) 	\
 static const char __module_license[] __attribute__((section(".modinfo"))) =   \
-"license=" license
+"license=" license; \
+static const char __module_license_blurb[] __attribute__((section(".modinfo"))) = \
+"license_blurb=This module is covered under the GPL v2 or any later version. " \
+"Please see the file COPYING in the toplevel directory of the source archive " \
+"of this module."
 
 /* Define the module variable, and usage macros.  */
 extern struct module __this_module;


Of course this can still be circumvented by removing that string from
include/linux/module.h, but you'd still be able to identify renegade
modules, since they perpetrate as GPL'd modules.

M. R.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]