Followup to: <E15xVcA-0003bG-00@the-village.bc.nu>
By author: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> > but I think you are confusing intent with implementation. The intent
> > (AFAICS) is to mark the kernel tainted ONLY if a closed-source module
> > is loaded, rather than to be a "license police" mechanism, especially
> > for sources that have been included in the kernel for a long time.
>
> "BSD" can indicate totally closed source material as well as other stuff
>
I was thinking about that, and that doesn't seem right to me -- you
can make closed-source derivative works based on BSD but I would
typically not refer to them as "BSD" license (think SunOS 4.1 here...)
>
> Also Keith is right - if it is GPL compatible BSD code linked with the
> kernel then its correct to describe it as Dual BSD/GPL anyway
>
I think the idea of making a standard set of macros available is a
good idea for two reasons:
a) It avoids mispellings;
b) It makes it possible to apply standard definitions to the codified
strings.
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <amsp@zytor.com> - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 31 2001 - 21:00:34 EST