On 07/29/2013 03:08:23 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Scott,
In message 1375127231.30721.54@snotra you wrote:
Looking at this commit, it is totally unclear to me which parts
of the
newly added code you could be referring to with your "which are
not
considered a derived work of GPL v2-only code".
Your addition makes the legal situation of the whole file pretty
much
indeterminable. Could you please be so kind and explain what
exactly
your intention was, and what exactly yuou were referring to?
The license of the whole file is GPLv2 only. The intent was to
Is it? Why so? It appears that the first versions of that file did not include any license header at all, which means they were contributed under the project-wide GPLv2+ license.
Only your commit added - 7 years later! - a GPLv2 only license header, and I really wonder what the base for this change would be?
Hmm... The same text appears in drivers/mtd/nand/nand_util.c, which does have a pre-existing v2-only header. I probably applied it to cmd_nand.c as well because it was unclear whether the existing code was also v2-only.
The project-wide COPYING did not have the "or later" language until Jan 9 2011 (commit b9347188729992ef8282a2854889d8dcc25175aa), so it's not clear to me that the project-wide license was GPLv2+ at the time that the older cmd_nand.c code was submitted, or even at the time that I added the above text.
-Scott