Re: Module Licensing?

[TimO]

Ben Greear wrote:
> 
> "Kevin D. Wooten" wrote:
> >
> > After reading the posts about the MODULE_LICENSE macro, I am in disbelief. I
> > was under the impression that one could write a "closed-source" module and
> > distribute it in binary form, and be in compliance. Please tell me I am
> > wrong? We use Linux as a platform for some data acquisition, and we are
> > currently distributing ( in very limited quantity to people who would already
> > have signed an NDA ) modules that currently have no official license as yet.
> > We are researching which license to use, but according to these post's we
> > have almost no choice, Open Source or not at all!
> 
> No, you just can't use certain symbols if you're not GPL.  If your
> code already works, then you're fine, as previously existing symbols
> will not be thus restricted...  You can just make your MODULE_LICENSE == "mine-all-mine...including-all-my-bugs"

Ugghh!  Don't confuse/equate MODULE_LICENSE with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL_ONLY;
two different animals, two differnet goals.  See archives for more info.

> 
> Ben
> 
> >
> > -kw
> > -

-- 
===============
-- TimO
--------------------==============++==============--------------------
                             No Cool .sig