Messages in this thread | | | From | vda <> | Subject | Re: GPLv2 or not GPLv2? (no license bashing) | Date | Tue, 9 Mar 2004 09:16:08 +0200 |
| |
On Thursday 04 March 2004 16:11, Richard B. Johnson wrote: > On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > just digging a bit in the kernel and found some funny things: > > > > -there is a tag only for "GPL v2" but there are some drivers claiming to > > be v2 and not using this (patch will follow) > > -there are some drivers with the comment ", either version 2 of the > > License." in the header. s/either // ? If so, there are some more files > > where someone should change MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") to "GPL v2". > > I don't think anybody, but the original author, can change the > licensing or its symbology. In other words, if there is a > MODULE_LICENSE("ZORK"), that stays until it is changed by > the author that inserted it initially. > > In fact, a review of Linux history by a first-year law student > may show that somebody, not the original author, added the > MODULE_LICENSE() macro to a lot of modules that didn't have > any such macro, and thereby assigned some license that did > not previously exist! Such an implied license may not be valid > because the original author of the work did not perform that > assignment. > > I think you need to be vigilant and not fall into the RMS trap > where anything that is "found" anywhere, automatically becomes > the property of GPL.
Well, Linux kernel is GPLed. If one adds his/hers code to the kernel (s)he is automatically agrees to the terms of GPL.
Because "adds code" is actually incorrect here. "modifies existing GPLed code" is more accurate.
Or so I see it. -- vda - 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/
| |