[OpenAFS] What to put inside MODULE_LICENSE?

[Bart Banter]

I am not an expert on licensing, but I think you have an incomplete 
understanding of the MODULE_LICENSE scheme. The main intent of the "tainted" 
tag is to make it easy to tell if there are modules loaded for which the 
source is not available.
As long as there are no closed-source implementations of the openafs Linux 
kernel module, it is not necessary to use the "Proprietary" tag. You could 
use, for instance, "IBM Public License (without closed-source 
modifications)".
You would need to contact the keepers of the modutils package to get your 
license string included in the non-tainted list.

--Guy Streeter
Red Hat

>From: Derrick J Brashear <shadow@dementia.org>
>To: openafs-info@openafs.org
>Subject: Re: [OpenAFS] What to put inside MODULE_LICENSE?
>Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 19:00:41 -0500 (EST)
>
>This is spoken as a private user of OpenAFS and Linux and in no other
>capacity.
>
>On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Andrei Maslennikov wrote:
>
> > While it is very easy to incorporate the needed MODULE_LICENSE("xxx");
> > inside osi_module.c in order to get rid of the insmod warning about the
> > tainted kernel, the question of what this "xxx" must be remains open.
> > They currently support these options:
> >
> > "GPL"                       [GNU Public License v2 or later]
> > "GPL and additional rights" [GNU Public License v2 rights and more]
> > "Dual BSD/GPL"              [GNU Public License v2 or BSD license 
>choice]
> > "Dual MPL/GPL"            [GNU Public License v2 or Mozilla license 
>choice]
> > "Proprietary"               [Non free products]
>
>We're "proprietary". I have opinions about it but based on their current
>scheme it is true. Apparently this could be circumvented by having OpenAFS
>included in the kernel (which at this point is premature, IMHO). I'm not
>interested in having a useless flame war with them about it but my opinion
>is the people behind this live in the world of "could" (our module "could"
>be distributed by someone who who made changes and did not share them) and
>I live in the world of "is" (No one is)
>
>The world of "could" is not very interesting, or maybe I'm just too
>practical for these theorists.
>
>-D
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>OpenAFS-info mailing list
>OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
>https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com