linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] module: Clarify usage of MODULE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 07 May 2012 12:30:16 +0930
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...jolero.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...jolero.org>,
	Tso Ted <tytso@....edu>, Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Arend Van Spriel <arend@...adcom.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] module: Clarify usage of MODULE_LICENSE()

On Sun,  8 Apr 2012 09:46:28 -0700, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...jolero.org> wrote:
> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...jolero.org>
> 
> While the kernel is GPLv2 individual the MODULE_LICENSE() has allowed for
> these tag to be used:
> 
>   * Dual BSD/GPL
>   * Dual MIT/GPL
>   * Dual MPL/GPL
> 
> This is done for historical reasons, namely questioning the compatibilty
> between the GPL and some old BSD licenses. Some developers and maintainers
> tend to use assume the macro is also used to help clarify if the module
> source code could be shared with the BSD family, but that is not the
> case.

Incorrect.  When the author clarifies their license it *does* help.  If
a tag and license text were to disagree, it would muddy the waters.

> The MODULE_LICENSE() declares the module's license at run time and even for
> the dual tags the run time license that applies is the GPL.

You're probably correct, but it's very hard to care.

> If sharing share between Linux and permissive licensed Operating Systems such
> as the BSDs is desired developers should review the license on the top of
> each file being considered to be shared.

Of course.  But having both is nice and clear.

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/