From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262809AbVCMEZl (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Mar 2005 23:25:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262773AbVCMEZj (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Mar 2005 23:25:39 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:41902 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262878AbVCMEZH (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Mar 2005 23:25:07 -0500 Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 23:24:59 -0500 From: Dave Jones To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: adaplas@pol.net Subject: nvidia fb licensing issue. Message-ID: <20050313042459.GF32494@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, adaplas@pol.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Dave