Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre1
Mark Hymers (markh@linuxfromscratch.org)
Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:05:09 +0000
On Wed, 28, Nov, 2001 at 06:48:13PM -0500, Robert Love spoke thus..
> On Wed, 2001-11-28 at 18:39, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > use "BSD without advertising clause", which causes the kernel to
> > > be
> > > tainted. Shouldn't fs/nls/*.c use "Dual BSD/GPL" or "GPL" instead?
> >
> > Dual BSD/GPL is the correct one. Not a big issue. Since the GPL
> > allows
> > stuff to be freer than GPL but still GPL its arguably correct too I
> > suspect
>
> I was waiting for confirmation about the license status...without
> getting into what license is correct and legal, the current
> MODULE_LICENSE value taints the kernel. The attached patch switches
> to
> Dual BSD/GPL.
Do you know what the legal status of the rest of the *.c files in fs/nls
is? There are still quite a few which have no MODULE_LICENSE tag at all
which causes the kernel to be tainted (IMO) incorrectly.
Mark
--
Mark Hymers BLFS Editor
markh@linuxfromscratch.org
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/