What "module license" applies to public domain code?

What "module license" applies to public domain code?

[Mark E. Carson]

There was a discussion awhile ago which touched briefly on this, but I
didn't see a resolution, so...

I am writing kernel module code which must (for various reasons) be
public domain.  Given that, are any of the module license strings in
include/linux/module.h appropriate for it?

I checked the version in the 2.5.3 kernel tree, and the best I could
come up with was "GPL and additional rights."  However, I couldn't find
any precise definition of this anywhere, so I'm not sure it's really
correct here.  It'd be kind of a perverse definition of "public domain,"
in any case.

Of course, anyone else would be free to take the code and apply any
license whatsoever to it, but my concern is simply what MODULE_LICENSE()
line I can legitimately include, if any.

Mark Carson	mark.carson@nist.gov	301-975-3694	Fax 301-590-0932

Re: What "module license" applies to public domain code?

[arjan]

In article <Pine.LNX.4.30.0202081632041.16834-100000@ran.antd.nist.gov> you wrote:

> Of course, anyone else would be free to take the code and apply any
> license whatsoever to it, but my concern is simply what MODULE_LICENSE()
> line I can legitimately include, if any.

how about

MODULE_LICENSE("Dual GPL/Public Domain");

this would need adding to the proper headers though

Re: What "module license" applies to public domain code?

[H. Peter Anvin]

Followup to:  <m16ZJNl-000OVeC@amadeus.home.nl>
By author:    arjan@fenrus.demon.nl
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.30.0202081632041.16834-100000@ran.antd.nist.gov> you wrote:
> 
> > Of course, anyone else would be free to take the code and apply any
> > license whatsoever to it, but my concern is simply what MODULE_LICENSE()
> > line I can legitimately include, if any.
> 
> how about
> 
> MODULE_LICENSE("Dual GPL/Public Domain");
> 
> this would need adding to the proper headers though
> 

The thing is ... public domain isn't a license, it's disavowing
copyright.  Part of what that means is that someone can take the work
and publish it under their own copyright.

For liability reasons, something that get published in the kernel
probably would have to be recopyrighted by someone else and GPL'd.

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt	<amsp@zytor.com>

Re: What "module license" applies to public domain code?

[Alan Cox]

> Of course, anyone else would be free to take the code and apply any
> license whatsoever to it, but my concern is simply what MODULE_LICENSE()
> line I can legitimately include, if any.

We have to be careful about this because MODULE_LICENSE("Public domain")
doesn't mean anything if the resulting code is then shipped binary only.
GPL and additional rights is probably closest or even just a

/*
 *	When linked into the Linux kernel the resulting work is GPL, you
 *	are however free to use this work under other licenses if you
 *	so wish. See README.blah
 */

MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");	/* When part of Linux */