From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:11:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:11:38 -0400 Received: from rj.sgi.com ([204.94.215.100]:42985 "EHLO rj.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:11:27 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 From: Keith Owens To: Alan Cox cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.9-ac5 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Aug 2001 01:33:11 +0100." <20010831013311.A8535@lightning.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:11:33 +1000 Message-ID: <8483.999220293@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 01:33:11 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: >2.4.9-ac5 >o Add MODULE_LICENSE tagging (me) __module_license needs to be static. Otherwise we get problems when MODULE_LICENSE() is used in two objects which are linked into the same module. Given the legal requirements for copyright etc., I expect people to put MODULE_LICENSE in every source file, not just one. What do you need for licence support in modutils? Obviously modinfo needs to print it, but what about insmod? Should insmod issue warning messages for proprietary modules? What about ksymoops? IOW, what was the reason for adding MODULE_LICENSE?