Re: MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")??

[Chris Friesen]

On 08/01/2012 03:24 PM, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> What would happen if NVIDIA used this define in their proprietary
> driver? I ask because I am currently in a situation where I believe I
> may be about to use a product that may be doing this very thing. We had
> to sign a license agreement to get the kernel driver source for this
> product. What we received contained the kernel driver source and user
> land library stuff. The source code for the kernel driver has
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") defined. The only license info in the package
> received was NOT the GPL license.
>
> On this particular vendors web site they offer unrestricted downloads of
> binary packages for their product/s that are for specific DIST kernels.
> But to get the source requires signing a license agreement that is NOT GPL.

There are two cases.

1) They're using GPL-exported symbols in a module that they're trying to 
claim is not licensed under the GPL.  In this case someone with suitable 
copyright standing could talk to them and get them to release the code 
or rewrite it to not depend on GPL-only symbols.

2) You want to use their code under the GPL.  In this case you should 
probably talk to your legal people.  If you released the code under the 
GPL and they sued you for it you might be able to argue that that 
statement implies that the module is licensed under the GPL.   But it 
might be an expensive argument.

Chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/