On Mon, Jun 06 2022 at 16:11, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 3:58 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Based on the normalized pattern:
>>
>> this program is free software you can redistribute it and/or modify it
>> under the terms of version 2 of the gnu general public license as
>> published by the free software foundation this program is distributed
>> in the hope that it will be useful all express or implied conditions
>> representations and warranties including any implied warranty of
>> merchantability fitness for a particular purpose or non-infringement
>> are disclaimed except to the extent that such disclaimers are held to
>> be legally invalid see the gnu general public license for more details
>> a copy of which can be found in the file copying included with this
>> package
>
> I forget how we dealt with things like this in the initial large batch
> some years ago but I remember raising the concern that some bespoke
> license notices contained disclaimer language that was arguably
> materially different in some way from what is found in GPLv2 itself.
> This might be another example. I think in some such cases we at least
> considered preserving the nonstandard disclaimer language.
IIRC, there was no real conclusion aside of dealing with this later :)
One way would be to talk to the original author (if still reachable) and
ask for clarification/permission to remove it. In this case Broadcom.
Thanks,
tglx
