On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 00:00 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx>"
> #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
-
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
