From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 05:16:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 05:16:47 -0500 Received: from t2.redhat.com ([199.183.24.243]:34290 "EHLO passion.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 05:16:27 -0500 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 From: David Woodhouse X-Accept-Language: en_GB In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: To: Alan Cox Cc: adilger@turbolabs.com (Andreas Dilger), kaos@ocs.com.au (Keith Owens), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Non-standard MODULE_LICENSEs in 2.4.13-ac2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:16:21 +0000 Message-ID: <26434.1004350581@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk said: > "BSD" can indicate totally closed source material as well as other > stuff "GPL" can indicate modules which are either for internal use only and not distributed, or which are distributed only to paying customers and shipped with source, but the source is not publicly available. Should we make the licence string "GPL" taint the kernel too, unless it's explicitly stated that the source is available? -- dwmw2