| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20120531222407.GB5256@prithivi.gnumonks.org> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 00:24:07 +0200 From: Harald Welte <laforge@...monks.org> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH] List LGPL (v2 / v2.1) as GPL compatible in license_is_gpl_compatible() It may be a highly unusual choice to license Linux kernel drivers under LGPL, but at least as long as LGPLv2 or LGPLv2.1 is used, this is fully GPL compatible and shouldn't taint the kernel. Signed-off-by: Harald Welte <laforge@...monks.org> --- include/linux/license.h | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) NOTE: I've actually seen this happen in practise, where an embedded system ships with a LPGL licensed driver which in turn taints the kernel. I suppose this was not really the intention... diff --git a/include/linux/license.h b/include/linux/license.h index decdbf4..9c0df0e 100644 --- a/include/linux/license.h +++ b/include/linux/license.h @@ -8,7 +8,10 @@ static inline int license_is_gpl_compatible(const char *license) || strcmp(license, "GPL and additional rights") == 0 || strcmp(license, "Dual BSD/GPL") == 0 || strcmp(license, "Dual MIT/GPL") == 0 - || strcmp(license, "Dual MPL/GPL") == 0); + || strcmp(license, "Dual MPL/GPL") == 0 + || strcmp(license, "LGPL") == 0 + || strcmp(license, "LGPL v2") == 0 + || strcmp(license, "LGPL v2.1") == 0); } #endif -- 1.7.10 -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists