linux-kernel - MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")??

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <50199E91.5040308@cfl.rr.com>
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:24:33 -0400
From:	Mark Hounschell <dmarkh@....rr.com>
To:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")??

What would happen if NVIDIA used this define in their proprietary driver? I 
ask because I am currently in a situation where I believe I may be about to 
use a product that may be doing this very thing. We had to sign a license 
agreement to get the kernel driver source for this product. What we 
received contained the kernel driver source and user land library stuff. 
The source code for the kernel driver has MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") defined. 
The only license info in the package received was NOT the GPL license.

On this particular vendors web site they offer unrestricted downloads of 
binary packages for their product/s that are for specific DIST kernels. But 
to get the source requires signing a license agreement that is NOT GPL.

Thanks
--
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/