Re: Fw: signed kernel modules?

[Matthew Garrett]

Richard B. Johnson <root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> If the whole module license issue is truly one of being able
> to review the source, then certainly nobody would fear the
> inclusion of a "PUBLIC" license string. This would fit the
> broad classification of publicly-available sources, not
> necessarily just in the "Public domain". For instance, when
> a company puts the sources for some driver on it's Web Page,
> but doesn't want to have anything to do with Mr. Stallman.

This potentially leds to arguments about whether developers who have
seen your publically available code are then tainted. If you don't want
anything to do with Mr. Stallman, why not just use a BSD-style license?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.linux-rutgers.kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/