On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 10:51:23 +1000, Trent Waddington said: > On 2/2/07, Tomas Carnecky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Can't you put this somewhere into the documentation: it's our kernel, > > play by our rules, and our rules are, the license is what is visible in > > 'printf(license)'? > > Here I was thinking the rules were: all modules must be GPL and the > jerks who make proprietary modules are just blatantly breaking the > law. But you're right, the MODULE_LICENSE tag really does imply that > licenses other than the GPL are ok. Given that the definition of "derived work" in the software world is still quite squishy and not firmed up, it's not at all clear that proprietary modules are "blatantly" breaking the law. In particular, feel free to cite actual statute or case law that proves unequivocally that modules that have a GPL shim that interface between the kernel and a binary blob are breaking the law. Hint: first you have to prove that the kernel API doesn't qualify as 'scenes a faire' - a tough job when calling a function in any way but the one approved one will cause an oops. ;)
Attachment:
pgp9wV7SiF0KB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- [PATCH] Ban module license tag string termination trick
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Ban module license tag string termination trick
- From: Jon Masters <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Ban module license tag string termination trick
- From: Tomas Carnecky <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Ban module license tag string termination trick
- From: "Trent Waddington" <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] Ban module license tag string termination trick
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC 0/8] Cpuset aware writeback
- Next by Date: Re: [2.6.20-rc6] pktcdvd doesn't work
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Ban module license tag string termination trick
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Ban module license tag string termination trick
- Index(es):
 |