Re: Non-standard MODULE_LICENSEs in 2.4.13-ac2

H. Peter Anvin
2001-10-28T08:06:10Z

Followup to: <E15xVcA-0003bG-00@the-village.bc.nu>
By author: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> > 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.
>
> "BSD" can indicate totally closed source material as well as other stuff
>

I was thinking about that, and that doesn't seem right to me -- you
can make closed-source derivative works based on BSD but I would
typically not refer to them as "BSD" license (think SunOS 4.1 here...)

>
> Also Keith is right - if it is GPL compatible BSD code linked with the
> kernel then its correct to describe it as Dual BSD/GPL anyway
>

I think the idea of making a standard set of macros available is a
good idea for two reasons:

a) It avoids mispellings;

b) It makes it possible to apply standard definitions to the codified
strings.

-hpa

--
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <amsp@zytor.com>