From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161014AbXBBAv0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Feb 2007 19:51:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161025AbXBBAv0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Feb 2007 19:51:26 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.175]:6589 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161014AbXBBAvZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Feb 2007 19:51:25 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ixBFM70OfdswNjDLgjEJ7WTwpVzopfhmzw2Omq0e3Xt6zfrO5nsmOnTlSGX0Kqwc4C/wknA/gD3y93z6vch4zNk47la196pX5qyEnOmrUxMvU289w8Rpb5+eovL2UpN7Z2hCGul8/kXBZlcIUVstoat03daQgmx80Gw1lJwInms= Message-ID: <3d57814d0702011651s5d5f9dafuc26369fab99ad5cf@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:51:23 +1000 From: "Trent Waddington" To: "Tomas Carnecky" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Ban module license tag string termination trick Cc: "Jon Masters" , "Jan Engelhardt" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , "Andrew Morton" , "Alexey Dobriyan" In-Reply-To: <45C2832F.10603@dbservice.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <45C2670F.5000003@jonmasters.org> <45C2832F.10603@dbservice.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2/2/07, Tomas Carnecky wrote: > Can't you put this somewhere into the documentation: it's our kernel, > play by our rules, and our rules are, the license is what is visible in > 'printf(license)'? Here I was thinking the rules were: all modules must be GPL and the jerks who make proprietary modules are just blatantly breaking the law. But you're right, the MODULE_LICENSE tag really does imply that licenses other than the GPL are ok. Trent