MODULE_LICENSE string for LGPL drivers?

MODULE_LICENSE string for LGPL drivers?

[Joe English]

Hello all,

What should I use for the MODULE_LICENSE() string in a driver
that is distributed under the LGPL?  "LGPL" isn't listed in
include/linux/module.h as an "untainted" license, so should I
use "GPL and additional rights" instead?

I don't *think* I'm running into problems with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL --
the driver has been working fine under 2.4 kernels
and I only recently found out about MODULE_LICENSE and
*that* whole mess -- but am not sure, since I've also
got an older version of modutils which probably isn't
performing the taint check.

Unfortunately switching to the GPL is not an option;
the driver was written for a third party and must be
distributed with firmware (proprietary, binary-only)
and client libraries (source available but still proprietary)
over whose license terms I have no control.

Alternately, I could just let it taint the kernel.


Thanks for any advice.  Cc:'s to jenglish@flightlab.com
will be appreciated; I am not subscribed to this list, but
will try to keep up via the web archives.


--Joe English

  jenglish@flightlab.com

Re: MODULE_LICENSE string for LGPL drivers?

[Alan Cox]

> What should I use for the MODULE_LICENSE() string in a driver
> that is distributed under the LGPL?  "LGPL" isn't listed in
> include/linux/module.h as an "untainted" license, so should I

When LGPL code is linked with GPL code then the result becomes GPL. So
once you have the code combined with the kernel it is GPL unless its
a seperate work.

Alan

Re: MODULE_LICENSE string for LGPL drivers?

[Petr Vandrovec]

On 16 Apr 02 at 19:31, Alan Cox wrote:
> > What should I use for the MODULE_LICENSE() string in a driver
> > that is distributed under the LGPL?  "LGPL" isn't listed in
> > include/linux/module.h as an "untainted" license, so should I
> 
> When LGPL code is linked with GPL code then the result becomes GPL. So
> once you have the code combined with the kernel it is GPL unless its
> a seperate work.

I do not want to be flammed, but source file itself is still LGPLed,
so stating "GPL" in source is at least misleading to users who will use 
same source under NT kernel. I think that modutils (if anyone) should know 
this metamorphose.

And license on the file itself definitely does not change by compilation,
as this would for example change glibc licensing to GPL just by anyone
linking his GPLed application statically with glibc.
                                                    Best regards,
                                                        Petr Vandrovec
                                                        vandrove@vc.cvut.cz