netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2.6-bk 1/1] tg3: add license

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@redhat.com>
References: <4190A32E.6090200@wanadoo.es> <20041109124704.1f8cb3ad.davem@redhat.com>
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>