Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:51362 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751760AbXJWOF7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:05:59 -0400 Subject: Re: rt73usb: support for wireless in Kohjinsha subnotebook From: Dan Williams To: Pavel Machek Cc: Daniel Hazelton , Ivo van Doorn , Luis Correia , kernel list , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, rt2400-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, mwallis@serialmonkey.com In-Reply-To: <20071022220000.GH28190@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20071020184100.GA11640@elf.ucw.cz> <20071022211325.GF28190@elf.ucw.cz> <200710222352.57543.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <200710221742.36693.dhazelton@enter.net> <20071022220000.GH28190@elf.ucw.cz> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:05:12 -0400 Message-Id: <1193148312.8648.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> (sfid-20071023_150603_018512_A369F065) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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