On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 03:00:03 +0100, Tonnerre Anklin said: > If this is compiled as a module and then loaded, the kernel is tainted > because of a missing module license. True. However.. > Also, according to many european laws, software which is released > under no license must not be used. No way to verify this. I mostly understand the US copyright code as it impacts my work, but have no idea what the other side of that puddle does legally (and for that matter, I don't claim to know what the other side of the other, even bigger, puddle is)... > which says: "I guess the license is meant to be GPL." And so it was almost certainly intended to be. > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); > MODULE_AUTHOR("Kai Germaschewski /Werner Cornelius "); Unfortunately, neither you nor I nor anybody but Kai or Werner (or their assignees) can do this, as I understand the law. The only proper resolutions here are to get one of them to make some sort of statement (I suspect even a "Yea, it's GPL, we just forgot the macro" e-mail from one of them would be good enough), or to pull the code out of the 2.6.0 tree till it *is* resolved. (Sorry to be a stickler, but this is the sort of thing that Darl and company would love to make a point about - we *do* need to keep careful track of the actual source and license status of every line....) Kai? Werner? You out there?