| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 2.6-bk 1/1] tg3: add license |
| From: | Xose Vazquez Perez <xose@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 09 Nov 2004 23:45:29 +0100 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20041109124704.1f8cb3ad.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <4190A32E.6090200@xxxxxxxxxx> <20041109124704.1f8cb3ad.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; es-ES; rv:1.4.3) Gecko/20041005 |
David S. Miller wrote: Why add this, it's basically implied? Maybe it should be answered by a lawyer, but it's better to protect our freedom because law is very 'variable'. We have a copy of the file "COPYING" at the top of the source tree, which is why we don't duplicate it's contents nor excerpts all over the tree.
This is not a duplicate, it's only an advertisement.
Long time ago Torvalds wrote at COPYING:
"[...]
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
[...]"
what does MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") mean at tg3.c ?
GPL 1.0 ?
GPL 2 ?
any GPL ?
only 'GPL' ?
Is possible to write BSD or BSD/GPL or GPLv2 or GPL drivers/code
*inside* Linux kernel ?
--
TLOZ OOT: worse than drugs.
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Wrong UIDs reported in /proc/net/tcp, Chad N. Tindel |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Wrong UIDs reported in /proc/net/tcp, Herbert Xu |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 2.6-bk 1/1] tg3: add license, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH] [TRY2] Use nfmark as a key in u32 classifier, Catalin(ux aka Dino) BOIE |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |