Return-path: Received: from keil-draco.com ([216.193.185.50]:50683 "EHLO mail.keil-draco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752822AbXJWWTU (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:19:20 -0400 From: Daniel Hazelton To: Dan Williams Subject: Re: rt73usb: support for wireless in Kohjinsha subnotebook Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:19:09 -0400 Cc: Pavel Machek , Ivo van Doorn , Luis Correia , kernel list , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, rt2400-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, mwallis@serialmonkey.com References: <20071020184100.GA11640@elf.ucw.cz> <200710231541.42943.dhazelton@enter.net> <1193174828.7110.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1193174828.7110.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Message-Id: <200710231819.09919.dhazelton@enter.net> (sfid-20071023_231924_720793_F75E9261) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tuesday 23 October 2007 17:27:07 Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 15:41 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > > On Tuesday 23 October 2007 14:54:54 Dan Williams wrote: > > > On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 13:07 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 23 October 2007 10:05:12 Dan Williams wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 00:00 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I'm quite sure. There's MODULE_LICENCE("GPL"), IIRC. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That doesn't say much, some manufacturers add that line to > > > > > > > > their driver just to prevent the module loader complaining > > > > > > > > about a non-GPL driver... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There should be a copyright notice or a license file > > > > > > > > accompanied with the driver that clearly states the license > > > > > > > > of the driver. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lacking an explicitly stated license it can be argued that, > > > > > > > since the MODULE_LICENSE() macro is meant to define the actual > > > > > > > license on the code, this code is GPL. No, it isn't an explicit > > > > > > > definition, but lacking any other signs of the license, the > > > > > > > implicit declaration of it being GPL is (or should be) enough > > > > > > > to deflect charges of copyright infringement. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yep, I believe this driver is GPLed. They published the source > > > > > > and there's nothing to suggest otherwise, and there's explicit: > > > > > > > > > > > > #define DRIVER_AUTHOR "Jeff > > > > > > Lee" #define DRIVER_DESC > > > > > > "IS89C35 802.11bg WLAN USB Driver" MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); > > > > > > > > > > If there isn't an explicit COPYING or LICENSE file or something > > > > > distributed with the driver, and if there aren't copyright/license > > > > > headers at the top of the files in question, I have a hard time > > > > > agreeing that MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") _definitely_ means that the > > > > > author has GPL-ed the driver intentionally. Of course that's the > > > > > way it's supposed to work, but to me this doesn't pass sufficient > > > > > muster to be definitely called GPL without additional > > > > > clarification. > > > > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > Lacking any other indication MODULE_LICENSE is supposed to mark the > > > > license that the code is being distributed under. If companies are > > > > intentionally > > > > > > Step 1: Ask the author. > > > > Agreed. This should have been done before this discussion even started. > > > > > Step 2: if the author doesn't reply, then we can have this discussion > > > > > > MODULE_LICENSE is just a random string that could have been added by > > > anybody, not necessarily the author. Unless you can determine the > > > intent of the author explicitly, a single MODULE_LICENSE is not > > > sufficient to concretely determine the license of the code. It's only > > > in one file. There is nothing to explicitly state the overall license > > > of the whole work unless each file has a header referring to the > > > license or unless there is a license document distributed with the code > > > as a whole. > > > > > > In the absence of any other indication, MODULE_LICENSE doesn't not > > > concretely determine the license of the code. You can assume it does, > > > but that's your gun to put to your own head. > > > > The intent of MODULE_LICENSE is to mark the license on the code. This is > > clearly stated in several places in Documentation/ (if my memory serves). > > > > > > mis-using this to get around the "internal interfaces" limitations > > > > (where some interfaces are not available unless the module is GPL'd) > > > > and the warning message printed in the logs when the module is not > > > > GPL'd then they are (technically) in violation of the law. > > > > (interfaces that are GPL only are considered so internal to the > > > > kernel that using them makes your code GPL because of the inclusion > > > > of GPL'd code. And no - I am not going to get into that discussion - > > > > it's pointless) > > > > > > Just because the module may be loading illegally says _nothing_ about > > > the license of the code. > > > > No, but it is a mis-use of MODULE_LICENSE, which is supposed to state the > > correct license on the code. > > > > > > In the end, using MODULE_LICENSE for any purpose other than declaring > > > > the chosen license for the code is deceptive. So it is easily > > > > arguable that by > > > > > > "deceptive" is also not "this code code is definitely GPL". Doesn't > > > matter whether it's deceptive or not. We do not know that the code is > > > GPL. > > > > Deception in order to create a situation whereby you can prosecute people > > for violation of the law is illegal. Therefore not distributing the code > > with any indication as to the license other than MODULE_LICENSE and > > attempting to prosecute afterwards is illegal. QED: even if the code is > > not GPL'd (and such could be learned by contacting the author), the fact > > that it ships without any indication of the license other than > > MODULE_LICENSE implies that the license is what is stated and prosecution > > on the grounds that it isn't becomes entrapment. > > > > > > not including any license with the code other than the MODULE_LICENSE > > > > statement and then trying to prosecute because MODULE_LICENSE doesn't > > > > accurately state the license on the code is entrapment and illegal. > > > > > > Arguable doesn't mean that it's concrete enough to pass legal muster. > > > I am not a lawyer, but this just doesn't pass the bar. > > > > I know several and have asked one that is a very good friend. He agreed > > with my interpretation of the presented facts - that since the only > > indication of what the license on the code might be is MODULE_LICENSE it > > can be safely assumed that the license is what that states. Any attempt > > to later prosecute because the license is not what is stated would > > constitute entrapment - which is illegal. > > I asked Tom Callaway, who heads up all the legal/licensing issues for > Fedora. He said essentially "it won't be in Fedora" on just the basis > of MODULE_LICENSE. I can run it past Red Hat lawyers too. It's just > not clear with only MODULE_LICENSE, and not clear pretty much means > Don't Touch until it becomes clear. I have to agree with this. There are better ways to determine the license - including contacting the author. However, in the lack of any other source of information about the license MODULE_LICENSE can be used as a (somewhat) defensible position. It'd cost a lot of money and be a very hard fight, though - which is one reason why no company would (or should) take the chance. Nor should any person, unless they happen to have the money to fight the battle. DRH > > Dan > > > DRH > > > > PS: note that all legal information contained here-in is only known to be > > valid in the US. -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.