Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 7 Apr 2012 17:15:12 -0400 | From | Ted Ts'o <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] module: Clarify GPL-Compatible is OK |
| |
On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 08:01:36PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > I also really don't see how this helps License compliance folks. If > > the BSD folks trying to figure out whether or not they can use some > > piece of code, "GPL-Compatible" is no more useful than as "Dual > > BSD/GPL". In fact, Dual BSD/GPL might actually be more useful since > > at least to me it says it can be used under the BSD or GPL license, > > which is precisely what the BSD folks need. > > If we are OK with this thread serving as documentation for this then > so be it, but I still prefer for this to be clarified more. *I* am > comfortable with this but I know other vendors who did try to achieve > the same sharing had quite a bit of time trying to validate the > approach.
I would rather think the obvious clarification would be reading the d*mn copyright headers. That's going to have much more weight in a legal dispute in any case. If the answer is that the Linux Foundation needs to have a bit more basic training about what a Dual License means in its license compliance services, maybe that's the right thing --- although if a lawyer doesn't understand how dual licenses work, I'd suggest that the company find a better lawyer....
> I rather speed help clarify this is a reasonable approach > and also avoid flamewars like the ones we faced when developers eons > ago though that we *had* to GPL the OpenBSD ar5k HAL when we ported it > to Linux for use in ath5k.
So this is a different issue. I assume you are referring to the fact that include/linux/license.h's license_is_gpl_compatible() doesn't have a pure BSD option? If that's the issue, then lobby for adding the line:
+ || strcmp(license, "BSD") == 0
If you are really worried about people being upset that currently, you have to explicitly add a GPL license to BSD-licensed driver code before it gets imported into the kernel, and you are trying to sidestep the issue by adding a "GPL-Compatible" license (on the grounds that a BSD-only license qualifies as GPl-Compatible), let's have that debate openly, instead of trying to side-step it by adding "GPL-compatible" to include/linux/license.h and allowing BSD-only modules to use GPL-only symbols via a back door.
Regards,
- Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |