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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAB=NE6WLP8KWESmDi5Rfg8KPn36qwWzeEzz+0mOH5yP7i8w8eg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 7 May 2012 15:48:07 -0700
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...jolero.org>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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, May 6, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> 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.

Heh, OK.. sure...

>> 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.

Its good that we seem to care to not care, given that I have avoided
addressing this for eons, but we seem to at least care enough to not
want proprietary derivatives for Linux.

>> 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.

Alrighty.

  Luis
--
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/