Re: nvidia fb licensing issue.

From: Arjan van de Ven
Date: Mon Mar 14 2005 - 01:55:03 EST

On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 21:03 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:
> All of the files in drivers/char/drm really should have an explicit
> dual MIT/GPL license on them too. The DRM project has been taking
> patches back into DRM from LKML without making it clear that DRM is
> MIT licensed. It might be construed that doing this has made DRM GPL
> without that being the intention.

without explicit dual licensing this is a trap yeah... it's far far
nicer to just make it explicit that it's dual licensed and that you
expect all patches are also dual licensed unless they also remove one of
the licenses (several dual licensed parts of the kernel have such
language if you're looking for example text). Otherwise its very much an
unclear situation and with licenses it's just better to be very explicit
and clear.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at