Re: PostgreSQL licensed code on Linux

["Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>]

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 02:22:14AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:12 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote:
> > It would seem I did follow up with a v3 patch and Rusty noted that although
> > I may be right, its hard to care [0]. But of relevance here is again if one
> > of the MODULE_LICENSE() dual tags should be used or the GPL tag. I'll
> > continue to side recommending with the MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") tag even on
> > files with permissive licenses, and even if it we haven't clarified this in
> > documentation as I think scaling these tags further is just silly.
> >
> > [0] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/87bom0hf0f.fsf@rustcorp.com.au
> 
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-bcache/msg06048.html
> 
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-bcache/msg06058.html

For those that are not developers:

The proposed changes referenced in the above URLs take old portions PostgreSQL
C code which were previously on a larger C file and move them to a new module
which has the PostgreSQL header. Modules need to have a MODULE_LICENSE() tag,
and if one is not used the kernel assumes the module is proprietary. The above
code lacks a MODULE_LICENSE() tag as such currently the driver is proprietary.
Clearly that needs to be fixed before upstreaming.

  Luis