Re: nvidia fb licensing issue.

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>]

On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 21:59 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > The nvidia framebuffer code added recently is marked as
> >  MODULE_LICENSE(GPL), but some things seem a little odd to me..
> > 
> >  1. The boilerplate at the top of drivers/video/nvidia/nv_dma.h,
> >     drivers/video/nvidia/nv_local.h, and drivers/video/nvidia/nv_hw.c
> >     doesn't seem to be a GPL-compatible license. It seems to be an nvidia
> >     specific license with an advertising clause, and something that
> >     adds restrictions on rights of U.S. Govt end users.
> > 
> >  2. Some of these files clearly came from XFree86 judging from
> >     the CVS idents in the source.  Was this XFree86 code
> >     dual-licensed by its original authors ? If so, it isn't clear.
> 
> Does
> 
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.11/2.6.11-mm3/broken-out/fbdev-nvidia-licensing-clarification.patch
> 
> clear things up?

somewhat; it would even make sense to consider dual licensing that thing
(like most other not-originally-gpl code in the kernel) to clarify the
legal status for real. Otherwise if you merge it with GPL it sort of
becomes GPL only.. (due to the freedom of MIT and the viral nature of
GPL) and I suspect the intention of the author was to keep allowing MIT
use...