On 9/20/07, Forest Bond <forest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Try to get license clarification. CC John, it may help. Most vendor
drivers suck so usually they are rewritten anyway. I am not sure if we
can use it as a reference. I'm trying to find out ;) but in the mean
time try to get license clarification, it would help.
Luis
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
