Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> writes:

quoted text
> There are a number of files in the kernel that have in their
> headers a notice that the file is under the Mozilla Public License,
> which alone, is incompatible with the GPL.

quoted text
> This itself is fine, as long as the resulting code claims
> to be Dual MPL/GPL, however there are a few cases where this
> doesn't seem to be happening.

All of the files that you cite include a notice that they are licensed
under the GPLv2, in addition to the MPL.  There is no reason that
MODULE_LICENSE needs to indicate that some portions of code may also be
available under an alternative license.  Furthermore, for some modules
that contain both code licensed under the GPLv2 exclusively, and code
dual-licensed under both the GPLv2 and the MPL, it would be incorrect to
state that the combined work is dual-licensed under the GPLv2 and the
MPL.

As far as providing a convenience to users, I can't see why anyone would
really care that a particular module includes some code that may be
licensed under the MPL as well.  Anyone actually looking through the
kernel for code to incorporate into an MPL project would surely read the
copyright headers at the top of the source files, rather than try to use
the MODULE_LICENSE notes.

[snip]

-- 
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard
-
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/