Hi,
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 04:04:25PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 15:37 -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
>
> > This doesn't sound very GPL to me, however, the twist is in main_usb.c:
>
> Not really.
>
> > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>
> > What do you think?
>
> That declaring MODULE_LICENSE in a file that isn't licensed under GPL is
> a violation of the kernel license.
And, assuming that in-kernel support for this chip is desirable, is it better to
pursue license clarification from VIA, or re-implement using the driver source
as a reference?
The reason I ask is that I suspect for this driver to get into the kernel, it
will likely see a lot of changes, anyway. If it's going to be rewritten,
there's little sense in me pushing VIA on the license issue, is there?
I hope I'm not being daft.
Thanks,
Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
