In 2001 during the 2.4 kernel development cycle, a MODULE_LICENSE macro was introduced which allows a module to explicitly declare how it is licensed. Currently there are five supported types of free software modules, “GPL”, “GPL v2”, “GPL and additional rights”, “Dual BSD/GPL”, and “Dual MPL/GPL”, otherwise the kernel is considered “tainted”. The include/linux/module.h header file lists three reasons for this macro: to allow users to review their license info to verify that they have a free setup, so the development community can ignore bug reports that include proprietary modules which don’t release their source code, and so that vendors can do as is defined by their own policies. Read more at KernelTrap.
Linux: Abusing the MODULE_LICENSE Macro
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=108308534628965&w=2
PS: before we’re here also getting in a moronic discusion, the “taint” warning is not some pro-FLOSS/anti-proprietary rant. For the kernel developers. With that, they’re able to recognize the kernel has a proprietary kernel module in which the error could lie. Obviously, the kernel developers cannot change a proprietary kernel module. See the LKML for specific examples where this happened. The proprietary kernel module is however still able to function like a FLOSS kernel module (minus the above regarding bugs and bug fixes).
True however there’s a lot of people either don’t understand that, or just want to go on a anti-GPL rant.
Let’s hope this gets resolved.
I know the term FOSS (Free Open Source Software), but what means FLOSS?
I know the term FOSS (Free Open Source Software), but what means FLOSS?
The same thing, except the L is for “libre”. Some people like to use the phrase “libre software” instead of “free software” in order to avoid confusing people who see “free” and think “free as in beer”.
Funny how the article text was lifted from kernel without any ethics.
“Chris Metzler” sounds german. If I’m right: What mean’s libre in german? This isn’t english!?
…that there are parts of the kernal’s interfaces you can’t get at without the module being GPL’d, as using these interfaces counts as a “derivitive work,” so, as you know, you know, the module calling those functions has gotta be GPL. Its a small set of interfaces, for some deep voodoo hackermagick, but they’re there, for someone’s benefit, I guess.
Law sucks. Anarchy on the way, brothers!
Smart abuse, which relies on the subtle difference that exists in C between a string literal and a string.
…that there are parts of the kernal’s interfaces you can’t get at without the module being GPL’d, as using these interfaces counts as a “derivitive work,” so, as you know, you know, the module calling those functions has gotta be GPL.
Don’t go there. On the flip side of that coin a proprietary OS vendor (say, Microsoft) could state that no GPL licensed software may use its interfaces, which means running GPL software on that OS would be illegal.
“If I’m right: What mean’s libre in german? This isn’t english!?”
FLOSS adds Libre in the term. I use it because of the reason Chris explained, and it was also the first of the FLOSS/FOSS ones i learned.
Libre is French. English has a few words which implement the French word libre: libertine, libertinage, liberalize, liberal, liberation, liberty, liberator, etc.
Libero is a brand of nappy/napkins. A competitor to ie. Pampers. Not to be confused with liberty at all
Here are a few translations of both Free as in speech and free as in beer. First is Free as in speech, second is free as in beer.
German: Frei; kostenlos, ohne Gewahr (umlaut on a).
French: Libre; gratuite.
Dutch: Vrij; gratis, kosteloos.
Dutch and German are germanic languages; French is romanic language. However, there’s still a patern of layers: gratuite <-> gratis and kostenloos <-> kostenlos. That is because the Dutch language has borrowed quite a bit words from English, French and German. English also borrowed from French.
The Dutch word “gratie” is invoked when for example a prisoner is set Free after s/he has been in jail for a time and the government says you the prisoner doesn’t have to set their whole sentence out. This is normal here; it is normally 2/3 of the sentence. So instead of 18 years, you’d get 12. However that’s not very commonly used and gratis only means free as in beer.
For more (Spanish, Portugese, etc), use a translater. I used Babelfish (http://world.altavista.com) for the first German/beer one. Babelfish uses ‘free as in speech’ when you ask it to translate ‘free’ from English to German.
(освободите ; как в речи!
Why not, brother? A fact is a fact. Gotta be GPL’d if you’re gonna derive GPL. Somebody mumbled that there was no difference except sanity or taint messages from the kernal depending on the module_info junk, but, you know, that’s not straight.
Nothing wrong with sharing a little knowledge. We all get just a little bit brighter.
Thanks very much for the detailed description!
Now I see the similarity to Words like “liberal” (german for liberal *g*).
PS: Unfortunately I can’t speak/read russian and http://world.altavista.com says: “osvobo & to dite as in the speech!”. (osvob? dite?)
And there is a typo in your html code: (освобо & дите как в речи!
The same thing, except the L is for “libre”. Some people like to use the phrase “libre software” instead of “free software” in order to avoid confusing people who see “free” and think “free as in beer”.
Of course, that just confuses (and/or irritates) people who understand what “free as in libre” means and also understand that GPLed code *isn’t*.
“Of course, that just confuses (and/or irritates) people who understand what “free as in libre” means and also understand that GPLed code *isn’t*.”
its boring hearing this again and again. free software isnt the same as public domain software.
its boring hearing this again and again. free software isnt the same as public domain software.
Its also boring to hear this argument again. Its a terrible shame that RMS has poisoned the minds of so many people by associating GNU and the GPL as “free.” They are nothing of the sort. Too many restrictions.
I’ve nothing against GNU or the GPL etc. on their own, but their association with the term “free software” is the cause of this recurring headache inducing debate that the lot of us can’t ever drop (yeah, you, me, all the other fools who waste some of our spare time with this stuff
Certainly not one of the finer points of the various languages involved.
Since BSD is a truly free licence, any BSD code can be licensed under GPL, so dual licenses are somewhat redundant in this case.
If we didn’t have licenses like the GPL to complicate matters we wouldn’t need dual licenses at all. Free software would be free, knowledge would be shared, life would be simple. And people wouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel because of license incompatibilities.
Why not, brother? A fact is a fact. Gotta be GPL’d if you’re gonna derive GPL.
If writing a driver for Linux is a derivate work, then I guess SCO is right with their claims on IBM’s and SGI’s technologies…
To what I understand, the Linuxant driver was separated in two parts: the interface (GPL’d) and the driver itself (binary, proprietary). That’s similar to nVidia and ATI drivers. Personally, I’d rather have binary drivers than no driver at all.
If we didn’t have licenses like the GPL to complicate matters we wouldn’t need dual licenses at all. Free software would be free, knowledge would be shared, life would be simple. And people wouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel because of license incompatibilities.
So very true…
Gotta be GPL’d if you’re gonna derive GPL.
That’s why it’s called a parasitic license.
Speaking of derived works, I must say that i don’t think linking to dynamically to something is creating a derived work. If it was, microsoft (and hundreds of other companies, for that matter) would have a valid case to sue anyone who linked to any of their DLLs; the only thing holding them back would be their own interest in having lots of programs for Windows. Outside of the GPL world, it’s just assumed that anyone can link to anyone elses library. It’s not like the source code has been edited, or the binary edited and redistributed.
Linking dynamically to a GPL library from a non-GPL program is, IMHO, just the same as executing a GPL program in a separate process and using shared memory to communicate with it. The same things can be achieved, albeit in a more complicated way, by doing this.
To say that a GPL library can only be used by GPL programs is like saying that a GPL program can only be run on a fully GPL system. It’s stupid, and I doubt that it would be enforcable, especially given the way you can use hacks like that mentioned above to get around it.
Woops, forgot to put my name in the name box. Sorry.
its boring hearing this again and again. free software isnt the same as public domain software.
I never said it was. I was just pointing out that it’s not “free as in freedom” because there are non-trivial restrictions on what can be done with it.
BSD’s advertising clause is trivial. The restrictions in the GPL are not trivial, nor are they “free”.
That’s why it’s called a parasitic license.
No, actually it’s not. This is the same as calling it “viral” – GPL’d code does not attach itself to other pieces of code and make them GPL’d. You have to make a choice as to whether or not you make use of it.
I can’t believe the amount of whining that goes on about the GPL. What it comes down to is pretty simple: don’t like the licence? Then write your own code.
The fact that drivers need to be GPL’d(legaly) and considered tainted besides need to be compililed for what ever kernel they are being used on. It would simplfy things for the driver developers, the users, and hardware vendors to use the UDI interface specification for all drivers then not only could they be used on Linux but on *BSD’s also, along with the fact that vendors could keep their IP secret if they wish too with out haveing to make sure it can be recompiled on each new kernel release along with the hybrid distro kernel’s. I also don’t care if my drivers are closed or open source as long as the drivers work properly with full funtionality of the device.
I copy/pasted that directly from Babelfish to Mozilla. It showed fine here in the editor. But apparantely it got transported to HTML somewhere.
“Its also boring to hear this argument again. Its a terrible shame that RMS has poisoned the minds of so many people by associating GNU and the GPL as “free.” They are nothing of the sort. Too many restrictions.”
TYhis has been disgusted so many times. Go discuss it elsewhere, ok? It is a waste of time anyway. Just go away, trolls.
Lookie what I did. Damn. This is why I like using the BSD/MIT liscenses. “Give me credit and do whatever-the-fuck with it.” You know, that way I don’t have to have any morals or philosophies when I open-source code.
Share the knowledge freely, baby; take mine and make it better. I like the competition. 
“If writing a driver for Linux is a derivate work, then I guess SCO is right with their claims on IBM’s and SGI’s technologies…”
Only a few deep, deep kernal interfaces would invoke the GPL on your application if you called’em. I’ve been told there’s really no reason to use them, but I’m not a kernal hacker, so I’ve got no facts on the matter, so, you know, take my word with some salt and ketchup.
“To what I understand, the Linuxant driver was separated in two parts: the interface (GPL’d) and the driver itself (binary, proprietary).”
You know, my man, I think that leaves them in the same situation as before – since, you know, their bridge code is GPL instead of LGPL, the effect of the GPL carries through to their closed-source driver, I’m thinking, since they gotta interface with the bridge that interfaces with the kernal which interfaces with… Of course, they’re breaking their own copyright, so, you know, does it even matter to them? Who is gonna sue’em?!
“Personally, I’d rather have binary drivers than no driver at all..”
Hell yeah, brother.
“Speaking of derived works, I must say that i don’t think linking to dynamically to something is creating a derived work.”
That would be nice – I’m sure, you know, companies would pitch in drivers if they were comfortable in the knowledge their IP is, you know, “secure,” safe, in the cradle, whatever you wanna call it. They’re in it to win it and make fat wads of cash, and if they expose their IP the “enemy” has a big leg-up on’em. That’s capitalism for you.