Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261716AbVCOLGy (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:06:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261730AbVCOLGy (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:06:54 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:23986 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261716AbVCOLGs (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:06:48 -0500 Subject: Re: nvidia fb licensing issue. From: Arjan van de Ven To: Dave Airlie Cc: Jon Smirl , Andrew Morton , Dave Jones , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, adaplas@pol.net In-Reply-To: References: <20050313042459.GF32494@redhat.com> <20050312215936.513039a6.akpm@osdl.org> <1110701914.6278.18.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <9e47339105031318038d74da9@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:06:38 +0100 Message-Id: <1110884798.6290.46.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.1 (++++) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 2.63 on pentafluge.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (4.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.3 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains a numeric HELO 1.1 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [] 2.5 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK RBL: Sent directly from dynamic IP address [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS RBL: SORBS: sender is listed in SORBS [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1477 Lines: 29 On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 10:32 +0000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, Jon Smirl wrote: > > > All of the files in drivers/char/drm really should have an explicit > > dual MIT/GPL license on them too. The DRM project has been taking > > patches back into DRM from LKML without making it clear that DRM is > > MIT licensed. It might be construed that doing this has made DRM GPL > > without that being the intention. > > They all have explicit MIT licenses on them, these files are only > dual-licensed by the fact that they are shipped with the kernel, but they > are MIT licensed and I would consider any changes to them to be MIT > licensed unless someone explicitly states it.. this is actually a bit of a legal iffy point here. People submit patches to the kernel (which is GPL). In addition, while patches to gpl code are gpl (by the gpl "derived works" clause), the MIT license has no such requirement or even assumption on derived works so it's all quite iffy. I strongly suggest you put the dual license header in those files to get rid of the ambiguity.. as you said it's not really a big deal in that the code already is dual licensed in effect; please consider making it explicit, it solves a lot of ambiguity. - 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/