From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265315AbTLHDKM (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:10:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265316AbTLHDKL (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:10:11 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55]:31970 "EHLO sccrmhc11.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265315AbTLHDKD (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:10:03 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Additional clauses to GPL in network drivers References: From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 22:11:47 -0500 In-Reply-To: (David Schwartz's message of "Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:32:54 -0800") Message-ID: <87r7zg0zrg.fsf@jay.local.invalid> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-=-= "David Schwartz" writes: > It occurs to me that it might not be a bad idea to have a short blurb that > could be included in individual files that clarifies that the file is part > of a GPL'd distribution but that's clear that it doesn't impose any > additional restrictions. Here's a stab at such a notice just off the top of > my head: [snip] I don't understand the desire for a notice that is clearly redundant. Due to the nature of the GPL (version 1 or 2), licensing an entire work under it is exactly equivalent to licensing all of the component parts individually under it. -- Jeremy Maitin-Shepard --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/0+v9ASWI4gwIY4kRAvfNAJ9heJbal/r2izEGKeTwudJbMXnjPgCggbQk TAy/nscscYVuVz2JYPDz8E8= =JZtz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--