On Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 10:37:17AM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > > + * states, that the module is licensed under one of the compatible BSD > > + * license variants. The detailed and correct license information is again > > + * to be found in the corresponding source files. > > + * > > * There are dual licensed components, but when running with Linux it is > > the > > * GPL that is relevant so this is a non issue. Similarly LGPL linked with > > GPL > > * is a GPL combined work. > > Just to add to your points, I have seen a few times folks create > out-of-tree modules and use a MODULE_LICENSE "Proprietary" with a > proper GPL license notice at the top just to ensure that the code > would not be able to link with and use symbols exported with > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL().
That's very odd, but oh well, people do strange things :) > This further reinforces the relevance of your argument as > MODULE_LICENSE can be used also as a pure technical solution that is > not making any licensing statement. So much so that a rewrite could > instead use something akin to EXPORT_SYMBOL_PRIVATE/INTERNAL/NON_API ( > as 0 or 1) and MODULE_CAN_USE_PRIVATE/INTERNAL/NON_API_SYMBOLS ( as 0 > or 1) and not deal with anything license-related? After all this is > mostly a binary flag. No, let's leave the export symbol stuff as-is for now please. Let's just focus on cleaning up this odd string mess so that we can move on to the larger goal of getting everything in-tree properly classified. thanks, greg k-h
