Furthermore I have to agree with the previous poster. Any module could
easily lie to MODULE_LICENSE about its licensing terms and that would not
make it's source automatically "free" and GPLable so I am now wondering if
this tainting mechanism is of any use at all.
Just out of curiosity do all of these license tags in the modules take
up any permanent kernel memory, especially in a heavily modularize system?
> I believe that statement is as true as the assertion that nobody, even in
> the Free World, can write GPL'd code which use the algorithms covered by
> the patent.
> Either way, I didn't think that a political stance against patents was the
> point of the kernel tainting code - I thought it was about
> > The problem we have is that "BSD without advertisment" can be claimed
> > by almost any binary only module whose author doesnt include source or
> > let it out fo their company ever
> GPL can also be claimed by a module whose author doesn't publish either
> source or the binary, or who charges lots and lots of money for shipping
> binary and ships the source with it with a 'request' that the recipient
> doesn't then give it away for free.
> But if we're not going to allow BSD-licensed modules to be loaded without
> tainting the kernel, we shouldn't mark any of the code distributed with
> kernel as BSD-licensed - we should make it all "Dual BSD/GPL" instead.
> It might also be useful to have a 'Dual GPL/Other' option, for covering
> other randomly dual-licensed code (like JFFS2).
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/