ppp_deflate.o taints the kernel?

ppp_deflate.o taints the kernel?

[Muli Ben-Yehuda]

Salutations, 

The ppp_deflate.o module has the license string "BSD without
advertisement clause". Loading this module appears to taint the
kernel, which agrees with the allowed licenses list in
include/module.h, and with list in latest modutils (2.4.16),
obj/obj_gpl_license, where this license string does not appear.

I plead an utter lack of clue in regards to licenses, but assume that
it's GPL compatible if it's distributed with the kernel. In that case,
shouldn't it be added to the license list?

Thanks, 
-- 
Monday 1 Forelithe 7466

http://vipe.technion.ac.il/~mulix/
http://syscalltrack.sf.net/

Re: ppp_deflate.o taints the kernel?

[Alan Cox]

> I plead an utter lack of clue in regards to licenses, but assume that
> it's GPL compatible if it's distributed with the kernel. In that case,
> shouldn't it be added to the license list?

FAQ item - BSD license doesnt guarantee we have source. If its GPL 
compatible someone should slap a GPL header on our copy and be done with
it

Re: ppp_deflate.o taints the kernel?

[David Woodhouse]

alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk said:
>  FAQ item - BSD license doesnt guarantee we have source. If its GPL
> compatible someone should slap a GPL header on our copy and be done
> with it

It's already marked 'Dual BSD/GPL' in your tree and in 2.5, I believe.
I fixed it when I did the zlib changes.

--
dwmw2

change ppp_deflate.o module license string [was: ppp_deflate.o taints the kernel?]

[Muli Ben-Yehuda]

Marcelo, 

Please apply trivial patch to ppp_deflate.o to change module license
to dual BSD/GPL, like 2.5, in order to avoid needlessly tainting the
kernel. 

diff -ur linux-2.4.19-pre8-vanilla/drivers/net/ppp_deflate.c linux-2.4.19-pre8/drivers/net/ppp_deflate.c
--- linux-2.4.19-pre8-vanilla/drivers/net/ppp_deflate.c	Sun Sep 30 21:26:07 2001
+++ linux-2.4.19-pre8/drivers/net/ppp_deflate.c	Fri May 24 21:43:44 2002
@@ -657,4 +657,4 @@
 
 module_init(deflate_init);
 module_exit(deflate_cleanup);
-MODULE_LICENSE("BSD without advertisement clause");
+MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL");

On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 04:31:11PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
> alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk said:
> >  FAQ item - BSD license doesnt guarantee we have source. If its GPL
> > compatible someone should slap a GPL header on our copy and be done
> > with it
> 
> It's already marked 'Dual BSD/GPL' in your tree and in 2.5, I believe.
> I fixed it when I did the zlib changes.
-- 
Trewsday 2 Forelithe 7466

http://vipe.technion.ac.il/~mulix/
http://syscalltrack.sf.net/