lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] module: Clarify GPL-Compatible is OK
On 04/07/2012 03:02 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez<mcgrof@frijolero.org> wrote:
>
>> 4) Use the patch and leave it to the person who wants to extract code
>> to figure out the exact module license.
>
> After some though I think this is the only approach possible. Consider
> ath5k which has files under difference licenses:
>
> * Dual BSD/GPL
> * GPL
> * ISC
>
> The person taking code must check the header of each file.
>
> Luis

I would say that regardless your patch the "your preferred adjective"
license disclaimer in the source files trumps any MODULE_LICENSE value
so checking the files is always a necessary step. It is the only place
to look for the specific license information and it is on a per-file
basis as stated above. MODULE_LICENSE clearly groups these so a
generalization seems justified just for that.

So MODULE_LICENSE is really just about allowing EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL or
not. I admit that statement does not cover everything as the
MODULE_LICENSE is part of the module information, but as said it may or
may not cover a number of different licenses used within the module.

So this specific macro does not, or even should not, help people figure
out the license. We could consider some other tagging of each and every
source file and add some scripting support to do the task, but that will
be one hell of a patch so I will forever deny suggesting it ;-)

Gr. AvS



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-08 14:45    [W:0.101 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site