Hi Peter.
> 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.
For reference, here's a summary of the strings in the 2.4.13 kernel
tarball as distributed, counted using `sort | uniq -c` to avoid spam:
6 MODULE_LICENSE("BSD without advertisement clause")
22 MODULE_LICENSE("BSD without advertising clause")
1 MODULE_LICENSE("BSD")
8 MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL")
15 MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MPL/GPL")
2 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL and additional rights")
1 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2")
912 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")
Note particularly the line...
1 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2")
...which indicates that drivers/net/pcmcia/xircom_tulip_cb.c is regarded
as tainting the kernel - this string is NOT one of the ones that are
accepted as untainted. Is this reasonable?
The enclosed patch first moves the license definitions to a new header
file linux/license.h and then defines standard macros (with the ML_
prefix) for each of the above strings in standardised form, with dual
licenses listed in alphabetical order. It does NOT change any of the
uses of the MODULE_LICENSE macro, but if I get confirmation that this
patch is accepted into the kernel source tree, I'll go through the
kernel and tweak them all to match it.
Here's the definitions used for the above, in the same order.
ML_BSD_NO_AD
ML_BSD_NO_AD
ML_BSD
ML_BSD_GPL
ML_GPL_MPL
ML_GPL_PLUS
ML_GPL_V2
ML_GPL
You will note that the first two have been merged into a single
definition, as they are reasonably clearly the same license.
Best wishes from Riley.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 31 2001 - 21:00:34 EST