Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756053Ab2HAVmv (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:42:51 -0400 Received: from exprod7og120.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.18]:36371 "EHLO exprod7og120.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755955Ab2HAVmu (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:42:50 -0400 Message-ID: <5019A2C0.3010904@genband.com> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:42:24 -0600 From: Chris Friesen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Fedora/3.1.16-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dmarkh@cfl.rr.com CC: linux-kernel Subject: Re: MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")?? References: <50199E91.5040308@cfl.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <50199E91.5040308@cfl.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Aug 2012 21:42:25.0688 (UTC) FILETIME=[8A6DF180:01CD702E] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.4160-6.500.1024-19078.001 X-TM-AS-Result: No--8.933400-8.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1662 Lines: 33 On 08/01/2012 03:24 PM, Mark Hounschell wrote: > What would happen if NVIDIA used this define in their proprietary > driver? I ask because I am currently in a situation where I believe I > may be about to use a product that may be doing this very thing. We had > to sign a license agreement to get the kernel driver source for this > product. What we received contained the kernel driver source and user > land library stuff. The source code for the kernel driver has > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") defined. The only license info in the package > received was NOT the GPL license. > > On this particular vendors web site they offer unrestricted downloads of > binary packages for their product/s that are for specific DIST kernels. > But to get the source requires signing a license agreement that is NOT GPL. There are two cases. 1) They're using GPL-exported symbols in a module that they're trying to claim is not licensed under the GPL. In this case someone with suitable copyright standing could talk to them and get them to release the code or rewrite it to not depend on GPL-only symbols. 2) You want to use their code under the GPL. In this case you should probably talk to your legal people. If you released the code under the GPL and they sued you for it you might be able to argue that that statement implies that the module is licensed under the GPL. But it might be an expensive argument. Chris -- 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/