From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264176AbUEHH51 (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 May 2004 03:57:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264184AbUEHH51 (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 May 2004 03:57:27 -0400 Received: from sigma.informatik.hu-berlin.de ([141.20.20.51]:21943 "EHLO sigma.informatik.hu-berlin.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264176AbUEHH5T (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 May 2004 03:57:19 -0400 From: Axel Weiss Organization: (at home) To: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" Subject: module-licences / tainting the kernel Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 09:57:57 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200405080957.57286.aweiss@informatik.hu-berlin.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi all, from my point of view, the 'tainting-rule' for kernel-modules is too restrictive, allowing GPL-only modules to not be marked as tainting the kernel. Would it be possible to let e.g. LPGL-licenced kernel-modules be loaded legally? I do not at all want to hide my source code in any way, but under some circumstances, the pure GPL is too restrictive, and would reduce interest in open-source projects significantly. Opinions? Regards, Axel