Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

Timothy Miller
2004-04-30T21:10:03Z

Marc Boucher wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 30, 2004, at 4:44 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>>
>> The Linux-centric parts are absolutely NOT stand-alone, and one big part
>> of that Linux-centric stuff is that magic line that says
>> MODULE_LICENSE().
>>
>
> are you claiming that anything that uses the MODULE_LICENSE() macro
> becomes a derived work of the Linux kernel subject to the GPL?

Well, some people might argue that, but let's put that aside for the
moment. I think one of the things he's implying is that anything which
says MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") (which is what your driver did) is required
to actually BE under the GPL.

Technically, since the Linux kernel headers are under GPL, including
them into your code does make your code a derived work. However, people
are allowed to slide on this in certain strict circumstances, especially
when MODULE_LICENSE doesn't say the license is GPL.