Re: [gNewSense-users] GPL license in code

[Bake Timmons]

> 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.
>
> Relevant files:
> http://wiki.gnewsense.org/Kernel/Ubuntu-hardy-linux-2-6-24-12-22--drivers--s390--block--dasd-devmap-c
> http://wiki.gnewsense.org/Kernel/Ubuntu-hardy-linux-2-6-24-12-22--drivers--s390--block--dasd-c

Perhaps this is a special case of files without explicit licenses, which
we can assume to be under GPLv2 according to what marco found out here:

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2008-02/threads.html#00169

I like your summary: "Unspecified version of GPL" on these files,
because you also provide the needed context, i.e., the license comments
(and some informative macro calls).

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.