Re: Oops on 2.4.13

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com>]

Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> 
> On  2 Nov 01 at 13:02, Keith Owens wrote:
> 
> > drivers/video/matrox/matroxfb_crtc2.o - no license, needs patch
> > drivers/video/matrox/matroxfb_g450.o - no license, needs patch
> > drivers/video/matrox/matroxfb_maven.o - no license, needs patch
> > drivers/video/matrox/matroxfb_misc.o - no license, needs patch
> 
> They are all GPL-ed. Does it mean that I have to fix that someone
> else changed kernel API during stable serie?

yes, they need MODULE_LICENSE


> P.S.: I still do not understand this MODULE_LICENSE() thing. VMware
> modules will probably contain GPL tag in next release, but kernel
> hackers refuse to look at these reports anyway (I'm not complaining,
> this is their right to ignore these reports; but if they say that they
> are doing that due to non-GPL, they lie). So I think it should be changed
> from MODULE_LICENSE() to
> MODULE_CERTIFIED_BY_LINUX_KERNEL_WORKING_GROUP("xxx says it works").
> It would match real meaning much better.

Are VMware kernel modules 100% open source?  If yes, then that is
appropriate.

If VMware kernel modules use ANY closed source libraries (foo.a) etc.,
then putting MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") on that source is wrong.

-- 
Jeff Garzik      | Only so many songs can be sung
Building 1024    | with two lips, two lungs, and one tongue.
MandrakeSoft     |         - nomeansno