lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] module: Clarify GPL-Compatible is OK
    On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 05:11:22PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

    > You do not need to make dual licenses when licenses are compatible
    > with each other, and in fact at times this can confuse developers / legal.
    > This has been well documented by SFLC through their "Maintaining
    > Permissive-Licensed Files in a GPL-Licensed Project: Guidelines for
    > Developers" [0] which was inspired by the ambiguity of the MadWifi
    > Project's Dual BSD/GPL license tradition. The list of GPL-Compatible
    > licenses can be found on the FSF's website [1].

    This is obvious crap. Explain to me, please, what makes your "GPL compatible"
    different from "GPLv2"; at least that would be honest ("we have relicensed
    a copy of BSD/GPL code to GPL alone - the license allows that and any
    modifications done here are declared GPL-only, so you can't pull them into
    the BSD-licensed variants")

    "GPL compatible" is not a license; it's a set of licenses. Incidentally,
    belonging to that set is irrelevant to legality of including into the kernel,
    since GPLv3 a member and it's *NOT* compatible with the kernel license.
    since GPLv3 a member and it's *NOT* compatible with the kernel license.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-07 02:31    [W:0.018 / U:89.392 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site