e1000 driver contains private copy of GPL... and modified one, too

e1000 driver contains private copy of GPL... and modified one, too

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

Okay, so modifications are not major: different address of free
software foundation, completely different formatting, some characters
added, and some characters removed. It no longer contains Linus'
clarifications.

--- LICENSE     2006-07-21 05:42:27.000000000 +0200
+++ ../../../COPYING    2006-07-21 05:42:27.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,128 +1,141 @@

-"This software program is licensed subject to the GNU General Public License
-(GPL). Version 2, June 1991, available at
-<http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html>"
+   NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
+ services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
+ of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
+ Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
+ Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
+ kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
+
+ Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
+ is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
+ v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

-GNU General Public License
+                       Linus Torvalds

+----------------------------------------
+
+                   GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
 Version 2, June 1991

 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA
-
-Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license
-document, but changing it is not allowed.
+                       51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301  USA
+ Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
+ of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

 Preamble

Missing line in Intel's version:

-The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification
-follow.
+  The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
+modification follow.

+                   GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
 TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION


For some reason Intel's version likes stars:

-   * a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source
-        code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2
-        above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
+    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
+    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
+    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

...and hates ^Ls and <,>s.

 Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program
-'Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker.
+  `Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker.

-signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1989
+  <signature of Ty Coon>, 1 April 1989
 Ty Coon, President of Vice

Now... I believe nothing evil is going on, but having two slightly
different copies of GPL in one source seems wrong, can we get rid of
e1000 one?

								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Re: e1000 driver contains private copy of GPL... and modified one, too

[Auke Kok]

Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Okay, so modifications are not major: different address of free
> software foundation, completely different formatting, some characters
> added, and some characters removed. It no longer contains Linus'
> clarifications.
> 
> --- LICENSE     2006-07-21 05:42:27.000000000 +0200
> +++ ../../../COPYING    2006-07-21 05:42:27.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1,128 +1,141 @@

[snip]

> 
> Now... I believe nothing evil is going on, but having two slightly
> different copies of GPL in one source seems wrong, can we get rid of
> e1000 one?

I'll ask around here and see if this doesn't make people cringe. Meanwhile 
Pavel should examine sound/oss/COPYING and arch/sparc/lib/COPYING.LIB too :)

Cheers,

Auke

Re: e1000 driver contains private copy of GPL... and modified one, too

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> >Okay, so modifications are not major: different address of free
> >software foundation, completely different formatting, some characters
> >added, and some characters removed. It no longer contains Linus'
> >clarifications.
> >
> >--- LICENSE     2006-07-21 05:42:27.000000000 +0200
> >+++ ../../../COPYING    2006-07-21 05:42:27.000000000 +0200
> >@@ -1,128 +1,141 @@

> >Now... I believe nothing evil is going on, but having two slightly
> >different copies of GPL in one source seems wrong, can we get rid of
> >e1000 one?
> 
> I'll ask around here and see if this doesn't make people cringe. Meanwhile 
> Pavel should examine sound/oss/COPYING and arch/sparc/lib/COPYING.LIB too :)

Hehe, okay, going after them.

sparc64 lib:  this is actually LGPL, but I'm not sure what it applies
to. If specific files are under LGPL, I guess they should say that in
headers... Plus, not *all* files seems like LGPLed to me:

atomic32.c: * Based on asm-parisc/atomic.h Copyright (C) 2000 Philipp Rumpf

...I do not think atomic.h from parisc was LGPL. Dave?

oss/COPYING... I guess we can just remove that one. I do not think we
have maintainer for OSS. Should I submit deleting patch for Andrew, or
Andrew, can you just rm sound/oss/COPYING?
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Re: e1000 driver contains private copy of GPL... and modified one, too

[Auke Kok]

Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
>>> Okay, so modifications are not major: different address of free
>>> software foundation, completely different formatting, some characters
>>> added, and some characters removed. It no longer contains Linus'
>>> clarifications.
>>>
>>> --- LICENSE     2006-07-21 05:42:27.000000000 +0200
>>> +++ ../../../COPYING    2006-07-21 05:42:27.000000000 +0200
>>> @@ -1,128 +1,141 @@
> 
>>> Now... I believe nothing evil is going on, but having two slightly
>>> different copies of GPL in one source seems wrong, can we get rid of
>>> e1000 one?
>> I'll ask around here and see if this doesn't make people cringe. Meanwhile 
>> Pavel should examine sound/oss/COPYING and arch/sparc/lib/COPYING.LIB too :)
> 
> Hehe, okay, going after them.

After discussing this with John and Jesse we found that we want to do an update 
for all our drivers and fix the issue. I will send a patch later out that 
removes the LICENSE file and changes the header of the involved files. I will 
most likely have to do this for e100 and ixgb as well, so it will come a bit 
later than right away.

Thanks Pavel.

Cheers,

Auke