linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] xen-netback: fix license ident used in 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]

Message-ID: <1453472147.4320.92.camel@citrix.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jan 2016 14:15:47 +0000
From:	Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
To:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
CC:	Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	"open list:XEN NETWORK BACKEND DRIVER" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] xen-netback: fix license ident used in
 MODULE_LICENSE

On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 13:49 +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 01:14:24PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote:
> > On 22/01/16 12:34, Wei Liu wrote:
> > > The comment at the beginning of the file is the canonical source of
> > > licenses for this module. Currently it contains GPL and MIT license.
> > > Fix
> > > the code to reflect the reality.
> > 
> > "The MIT license" isn't really a thing.  The closest is the X11
> > license[1], but this not applicable here either since the text in the
> > drivers does not refer to X11 trademarks etc.
> > 
> 
> That was referring to the license ident string in Linux.  If MIT license
> isn't a thing, why would Linux have it at all?

The fact what include/linux/license.h:license_is_gpl_compatible includes
"Dual MIT/GPL" as an option seems to suggest that it is enough of a thing
to be validly used as the contents of a MODULE_LICENSE() thing.

It's also in https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT , the fact that it might
be confused for other licenses used by MIT notwithstanding.

FWIW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License seems to think that the
wording most commonly called the "MIT License" might be the "Expat
license", rather than the "X11 License" which is similar but different.

Ian.