Re: Non-standard MODULE_LICENSEs in 2.4.13-ac2

[Andreas Dilger <adilger@turbolabs.com>]

On Oct 27, 2001  13:31 +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> These are the non-standard MODULE_LICENSEs in 2.4.13-ac2, compiling
> these as modules will result in a tainted kernel.  "BSD without
> advertising clause" is not quite good enough for the kernel, that
> licence allows for binary only modules.  Kernel debuggers insist on
> general source availability.
> 
> Since the source is already in the kernel which is distributed as a GPL
> work, these sources are effectively dual BSD/GPL.  Could the owners
> please convert them to "Dual BSD/GPL"?

Ah, so Keith has become (self) nominated license God for the kernel?
Being included in the kernel source isn't "general source availability"?

I can see that you want to make this whole tainted-kernel mess work,
but I think you are confusing intent with implementation.  The intent
(AFAICS) is to mark the kernel tainted ONLY if a closed-source module
is loaded, rather than to be a "license police" mechanism, especially
for sources that have been included in the kernel for a long time.

Rather than make the MODULE_LICENSE() a string that people just fill in
(which as your example shows also has problems with spelling and such)
you could have a few pre-defined values to make things easier:

#define LICENSE_STRING_GPL          "GPL"
#define LICENSE_STRING_DUAL_BSD_GPL "Dual BSD/GPL"
#define LICENSE_STRING_DUAL_MPL_GPL "Dual MPL/GPL"
#define LICENSE_STRING_BSD_KERNEL   "BSD without advertising clause, kernel source"

This not only means we avoid problems with spelling (which will mark a 
kernel as tainted, even if it says "GNU GPL" or similar, and makes keeping
the values consistent between user-space and kernel space easier.  A
NON-TAINTING license string needs to be added for BSD sources that are
part of the kernel.

I totally disagree with the assertion that a module has to be "GPL" in
order to be "OSS free" especially for sources already in the kernel,
so lets not go on a witch hunt for non-GPL licenses in the kernel just
to make this tainted stuff work without adding a new license.  There is
enough animosity between the Linux and GPL camps without more fire for
the "GPL is viral, BSD is free" flamewars.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger  \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto,
                 \  would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?"
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/               -- Dogbert