There are a number of files in the kernel that have in their
headers a notice that the file is under the Mozilla Public License,
which alone, is incompatible with the GPL.
This itself is fine, as long as the resulting code claims
to be Dual MPL/GPL, however there are a few cases where this
doesn't seem to be happening.
drivers/pcmcia/soc_common.c gets linked into
drivers/pcmcia/pxa2xx_core.o, which seems to end up with
a module license of "GPL".
ricoh.h and o2micro.h are MPL, yet get included in
drivers/pcmcia/yenta_socket.c which ends up as a "GPL" module.
drivers/pcmcia/i82365.h is MPL, yet gets included in the following
GPL only drivers ..
drivers/pcmcia/i82092.c
drivers/pcmcia/pd6729.c
drivers/pcmcia/vrc4171_card.c
drivers/pcmcia/yenta_socket.c
drivers/pcmcia/pd6729.c is MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"), yet includes
the MPL'd 'cirrus.h'
drivers/serial/serial_cs.c labels itself as MPL/GPL, yet
has a MODULE_LICENSE("GPL").
drivers/scsi/pcmcia/qlogic_stub.c does the same.
I may have missed some others, but this is what turned up from
some simple grepping.
I've got patches fixing up some of the simpler cases changing
the "GPL" to "Dual MPL/GPL", but I want to be sure I'm not
barking up the wrong tree first.
comments?
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
Dave Jones <[email protected]> writes:
> There are a number of files in the kernel that have in their
> headers a notice that the file is under the Mozilla Public License,
> which alone, is incompatible with the GPL.
> This itself is fine, as long as the resulting code claims
> to be Dual MPL/GPL, however there are a few cases where this
> doesn't seem to be happening.
All of the files that you cite include a notice that they are licensed
under the GPLv2, in addition to the MPL. There is no reason that
MODULE_LICENSE needs to indicate that some portions of code may also be
available under an alternative license. Furthermore, for some modules
that contain both code licensed under the GPLv2 exclusively, and code
dual-licensed under both the GPLv2 and the MPL, it would be incorrect to
state that the combined work is dual-licensed under the GPLv2 and the
MPL.
As far as providing a convenience to users, I can't see why anyone would
really care that a particular module includes some code that may be
licensed under the MPL as well. Anyone actually looking through the
kernel for code to incorporate into an MPL project would surely read the
copyright headers at the top of the source files, rather than try to use
the MODULE_LICENSE notes.
[snip]
--
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard
Hi,
sorry for reply to 1-year-old message.
I heard original developer of these code (David Hinds)
have agreed to change the license to GPL.
Best Regards
Komuro
>List: linux-kernel
>Subject: GPL / MPL license issues.
>From: Dave Jones <davej () redhat ! com>
>Date: 2007-08-07 20:27:58
>
>There are a number of files in the kernel that have in their
>headers a notice that the file is under the Mozilla Public License,
>which alone, is incompatible with the GPL.
>
>This itself is fine, as long as the resulting code claims
>to be Dual MPL/GPL, however there are a few cases where this
>doesn't seem to be happening.
>
>drivers/pcmcia/soc_common.c gets linked into
>drivers/pcmcia/pxa2xx_core.o, which seems to end up with
>a module license of "GPL".
>
>ricoh.h and o2micro.h are MPL, yet get included in
>drivers/pcmcia/yenta_socket.c which ends up as a "GPL" module.
>
>drivers/pcmcia/i82365.h is MPL, yet gets included in the following
>GPL only drivers ..
> drivers/pcmcia/i82092.c
> drivers/pcmcia/pd6729.c
> drivers/pcmcia/vrc4171_card.c
> drivers/pcmcia/yenta_socket.c
>
>drivers/pcmcia/pd6729.c is MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"), yet includes
>the MPL'd 'cirrus.h'
>
>drivers/serial/serial_cs.c labels itself as MPL/GPL, yet
>has a MODULE_LICENSE("GPL").
>
>drivers/scsi/pcmcia/qlogic_stub.c does the same.
>
>I may have missed some others, but this is what turned up from
>some simple grepping.
>
>I've got patches fixing up some of the simpler cases changing
>the "GPL" to "Dual MPL/GPL", but I want to be sure I'm not
>barking up the wrong tree first.
>
>comments?
>
> Dave