netdev - 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: <20160122134943.GB1691@citrix.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jan 2016 13:49:43 +0000
From:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
To:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
CC:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
	Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
	"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, 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?

> You can either use "GPL" which would be correct for a Linux kernel
> module since the alternate only applies when distributed separately from
> Linux ("or, when distributed separately from the Linux kernel or
> incorporated into other software packages, subject to the following
> license:"); or you can use "GPL and additional rights".
> 
> (Or you could just leave it as-is since "Dual BSD/GPL" is close enough.)
> 

No, I don't want to leave it as-is. That's not BSD license.

I can change that to "GPL". That is acceptable to me.

Wei.

> David
> 
> [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#X11License
>