Return-path: Received: from keil-draco.com ([216.193.185.50]:50263 "EHLO mail.keil-draco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751935AbXJWTl6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:41:58 -0400 From: Daniel Hazelton To: Dan Williams Subject: Re: rt73usb: support for wireless in Kohjinsha subnotebook Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:41:42 -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> <200710231307.25301.dhazelton@enter.net> <1193165694.26768.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1193165694.26768.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Message-Id: <200710231541.42943.dhazelton@enter.net> (sfid-20071023_204202_365933_B02276FA) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. 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.