linux-kernel - Re: 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <501BBE45.8060309@cfl.rr.com>
Date:	Fri, 03 Aug 2012 08:04:21 -0400
From:	Mark Hounschell <dmarkh@....rr.com>
To:	Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>
CC:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")??

On 08/03/2012 01:10 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 08/02/2012 06:19 AM, Mark Hounschell wrote:
>>
>> This particular driver  does in fact build cleanly after changing the GPL
>> to PROPRIETARY. I haven't actually purchased the product yet so am unable
>> to load it, but can I assume that if I don't have a build issue when
>> specifying PROPRIETARY, that they are in fact NOT using GPL symbols and
>> maybe they just thought they needed to specify GPL for some reason or
>> another?
>
> Why not just ask the authors?
>

Well, I will before I actually distribute it to anyone. It's still not set 
in stone that I'm going to use their product but since I now know that it 
at least builds as NOT GPL, I just thought someone here could confirm my 
assumption that that actually meant they were NOT using GPL symbols.

Thanks
Mark
--
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/