[OpenAFS] What to put inside MODULE_LICENSE?

[Andrei Maslennikov]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Bart Banter wrote:

> 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
> 

  Actually, IPL itself does not admit any closed-source modifications. In
  case of binary distribution, paragraph 3.iv clearly states:

     "A Contributor may choose to distribute the Program in object code
      form under its own license agreement, provided that:
      ...
      iv) states that source code for the Program is available from such
      Contributor, and informs licensees how to obtain it in a reasonable
      manner on or through a medium customarily used for software
      exchange". 

  So probably the gatekeepers could follow the advice of Bart/Guy,
  show this clause to the modutils people, and ask them to register
  IPL in suggested form, as just another non-tainted case...

  Andrei.

____________________________________________________________________________
Andrei Maslennikov                                  phone : +39   06 4463354
CASPUR Inter-Univ. Computing Consortium and INFN    cell  : +39  335 6214776
c/o Universita' "La Sapienza", 00185 Rome, Italy    fax   : +39   06 4957083
___________________________________________________ mail  : andrei@caspur.it