Re: License oddity in some m68k files

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 05:24:45PM -0700, Matt Waddel wrote:
> >> Alan Cox wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Gwe, 2006-01-20 at 07:21 -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The language in the source files is pretty strong and this looks
> >>>> like
> >>>> Motorola should be asked to rerelease the files with a normal
> >>>> copyright notice in place of the current language...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Its standard boilerplate from the period. Its a perfectly normal and
> >>> clear copyright notice.
> >>>
> >>> Alan
> >>>
> >> Actually, that is the exact language our lawyers still give us to
> >> use today when we have not settled on license terms when we want to
> >> share code in a severely limited fashion.
> >>
> >> I still think it best that they (Freescale) modify their language
> >> to reference the actual license grant in the README.
> >
> >Good luck finding anyone in Freescale that would have any idea about
> >this.
> >
> >- kumar
> >-
> 
> I have been given permission to fix the "UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY
> SOURCE CODE OF MOTOROLA ..." section in the source files of fpsp040/
> directory.
> 
> One suggestion, so we don't have to revisit this topic in 16 years
> from now again, shouldn't we just remove the UNPUBLISHED ... comment
> altogether and replace it with Greg Kroah-Hartman's suggested verbiage
> as in the patch below?

Sure, that works for me.  Anyone going to forward this upstream?

Thanks a lot for looking into this,

greg k-h