On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 00:00 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
quoted text
> 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<YY_Lee@issc.com.tw>"
> #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


-
unsubscribe notice
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/