| |||||||||||||
Being honest with MODULE_LICENSE - how was the license srtring read?Being honest with MODULE_LICENSE - how was the license srtring read?Posted Apr 28, 2004 16:38 UTC (Wed) by parimi (subscriber, #5773)Parent article: Being honest with MODULE_LICENSE I am curious to know how the license string GPL\0for files in the "GPL" directory; for others, only LICENSE file applies within a binary module was read? My first guess would be the strings command..
(Log in to post comments)
Being honest with MODULE_LICENSE - how was the license srtring read? Posted Apr 28, 2004 16:49 UTC (Wed) by dvrabel (subscriber, #9500) [Link] It's in the glue source code.
Being honest with MODULE_LICENSE - how was the license srtring read? Posted Apr 28, 2004 18:45 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] modinfo (module-init-tools version 3.0) would print "GPL". I checked it on a different module by changing its MODULE_LICENSE. modinfo is the standard way to display module information, unlike strings.
Being honest with MODULE_LICENSE - how was the license srtring read? Posted May 1, 2004 0:37 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I think this point is key to the issue. Linuxant's trick is clever, but silly. It would have the same legal and technical effect to do it this way:
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); // not really, this just shuts up confusing messages
If a court would find that a user is entitled to consider the output of modinfo (or equivalent) to be a complete offer of a license, then both this and Linuxant's clever trick require Linuxant to grant a GPL license. If not, then it makes no difference legally what the argument of MODULE_LICENSE() is.
|
|||||||||||||