Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261531AbUCIH0P (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Mar 2004 02:26:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261568AbUCIH0P (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Mar 2004 02:26:15 -0500 Received: from 168.imtp.Ilyichevsk.Odessa.UA ([195.66.192.168]:18445 "HELO port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261531AbUCIH0K convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Mar 2004 02:26:10 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: vda To: root@chaos.analogic.com, Rolf Eike Beer Subject: Re: GPLv2 or not GPLv2? (no license bashing) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 09:16:08 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.4] Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200403040838.31412.eike-kernel@sf-tec.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200403090916.08626.vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1793 Lines: 43 On Thursday 04 March 2004 16:11, Richard B. Johnson wrote: > On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > just digging a bit in the kernel and found some funny things: > > > > -there is a tag only for "GPL v2" but there are some drivers claiming to > > be v2 and not using this (patch will follow) > > -there are some drivers with the comment ", either version 2 of the > > License." in the header. s/either // ? If so, there are some more files > > where someone should change MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") to "GPL v2". > > I don't think anybody, but the original author, can change the > licensing or its symbology. In other words, if there is a > MODULE_LICENSE("ZORK"), that stays until it is changed by > the author that inserted it initially. > > In fact, a review of Linux history by a first-year law student > may show that somebody, not the original author, added the > MODULE_LICENSE() macro to a lot of modules that didn't have > any such macro, and thereby assigned some license that did > not previously exist! Such an implied license may not be valid > because the original author of the work did not perform that > assignment. > > I think you need to be vigilant and not fall into the RMS trap > where anything that is "found" anywhere, automatically becomes > the property of GPL. Well, Linux kernel is GPLed. If one adds his/hers code to the kernel (s)he is automatically agrees to the terms of GPL. Because "adds code" is actually incorrect here. "modifies existing GPLed code" is more accurate. Or so I see it. -- vda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/