[OpenAFS] What to put inside MODULE_LICENSE?

[Nathan Neulinger]

I'm not sure what the big fuss is. My understanding from lkml/kt/etc. is
that the MODULE_LICENSE() macro serves two purposes.

a. Clearly taint the kernel if a non-open-source module is loaded
b. Allow modules/kernel source to export symbols that are allowed to be
used only by GPL'd modules.

As far as A goes, well, many of the kernel developers will do that
anyway since they don't understand AFS.

As far as B goes, who cares? Linus said in one of his mailings that he
would not accept any patch that broke previously exported functionality
by requiring the use'ing module be GPL and that only new functionality
would be allowed to require that. It seemed clear to me that he intended
not to accept anything that would restrict use of core kernel
functionality. 

I'd say, put a module_license() directive in that says IPL... and then
leave it at that. Whether or not it taints the kernel is a side issue.

-- Nathan


Chaskiel M Grundman wrote:
> 
> --On Monday, January 28, 2002 14:48:45 -0600 Bart Banter
> <bartbanter@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I don't think it's that simple. While said developers keep saying this,
> they also say, in the same breath, that only GPL-compatible licenses are
> acceptible. see http://lwn.net/2001/1025/a/module-license.php3 for one
> example. Or the following excerpt from insmod(8) from modutils 2.4.12 for
> another:
> > Starting with kernel 2.4.10, modules should have a license string, defined
> > using MODULE_LICENSE(). Several strings are recognised as being GPL
> > compatible, any other license string or no license at all means that the
> > module is treated as proprietary. See include/linux/module.h for a list of
> > GPL compatible license strings.
> 
> > If the kernel supports the /proc/sys/kernel/tainted flag then insmod will
> > OR the tainted flag with '1' when loading a module without a GPL license.
> 
> The IBM public license is not GPL compatible. There is a miniscule chance
> that the forthcoming new GPL will have language about patent licenses in it
> which will make the IBM public license compatible in that respect, but even
> if it does, it's been claimed that licenses that refer to specific legal
> jurisdictions  are not GPL compatible. (see
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PythonOld)
> _______________________________________________
> OpenAFS-info mailing list
> OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info

-- 


------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Neulinger                       EMail:  nneul@umr.edu
University of Missouri - Rolla         Phone: (573) 341-4841
Computing Services                       Fax: (573) 341-4216