Re: [gNewSense-users] GPL license in code

[Peter and Jesse]

On Sat, 2008-12-04 at 19:17 -0400, Bake Timmons wrote:
> > What is our practice for the MODULE_LICENSE and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
> > functions? drivers/s390 has files that don't state a license in the
> > comments but have MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") or
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(somethingorother) in the code.
> > On the one hand, the authors are clearly intending the code to be GPL.
> > On the other, it raises questions about our process. Ideas?
> >
> > Relevant (but 8-year-old) linux-kernel thread:
> > http://ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0110.2/0369.html.
> >

> 
> Regarding the macros, a quick grep suggests to me that checking the use
> of these macros might occasionally help us to more definitively
> summarize license terms.  Scripts might be enhanced somehow -- thanks
> for the idea.

Could someone double-check about the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL( ) function? I
looked at it again, and unlike MODULE_LICENSE( ), it doesn't seem to be
really giving a license statement for the file, but for a specific
symbol. So I'm thinking it doesn't really need to be included in my
script.
Relevant linux-kernel threads:
http://ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0110.2/0369.html
http://lwn.net/Articles/154602/
Thanks
 Peter