Re: GPLv2 or not GPLv2? (no license bashing)

From: vda
Date: Tue Mar 09 2004 - 02:27:54 EST

On Thursday 04 March 2004 16:11, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > just digging a bit in the kernel and found some funny things:
> >
> > -there is a tag only for "GPL v2" but there are some drivers claiming to
> > be v2 and not using this (patch will follow)
> > -there are some drivers with the comment ", either version 2 of the
> > License." in the header. s/either // ? If so, there are some more files
> > where someone should change MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") to "GPL v2".
> I don't think anybody, but the original author, can change the
> licensing or its symbology. In other words, if there is a
> MODULE_LICENSE("ZORK"), that stays until it is changed by
> the author that inserted it initially.
> In fact, a review of Linux history by a first-year law student
> may show that somebody, not the original author, added the
> MODULE_LICENSE() macro to a lot of modules that didn't have
> any such macro, and thereby assigned some license that did
> not previously exist! Such an implied license may not be valid
> because the original author of the work did not perform that
> assignment.
> I think you need to be vigilant and not fall into the RMS trap
> where anything that is "found" anywhere, automatically becomes
> the property of GPL.

Well, Linux kernel is GPLed. If one adds his/hers code to
the kernel (s)he is automatically agrees to the terms of GPL.

Because "adds code" is actually incorrect here.
"modifies existing GPLed code" is more accurate.

Or so I see it.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at