From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Xose Vazquez Perez Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6-bk 1/1] tg3: add license Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 23:45:29 +0100 Message-ID: <41914889.7060308@wanadoo.es> References: <4190A32E.6090200@wanadoo.es> <20041109124704.1f8cb3ad.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jgarzik@pobox.com Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20041109124704.1f8cb3ad.davem@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David S. Miller wrote: > Why add this, it's basically implied? Maybe it should be answered by a lawyer, but it's better to protect our freedom because law is very 'variable'. > We have a copy of the file "COPYING" at the top > of the source tree, which is why we don't duplicate > it's contents nor excerpts all over the tree. This is not a duplicate, it's only an advertisement. Long time ago Torvalds wrote at COPYING: "[...] Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. [...]" what does MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") mean at tg3.c ? GPL 1.0 ? GPL 2 ? any GPL ? only 'GPL' ? Is possible to write BSD or BSD/GPL or GPLv2 or GPL drivers/code *inside* Linux kernel ? -- TLOZ OOT: worse than drugs.