lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] module: Clarify GPL-Compatible is OK
    > 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.

    Firstly you are out of order touching the licensing tags of other vendors
    code. Absolutely and utterly. So nobody should for example be touching an
    Intel MODULE_LICENSE() tag without the say so of Intel legal.

    Secondly there are specific reasons this was done. For one it protects us
    from the FSF doing insane things - which is always useful. For the second
    it avoids ambiguity about licensing and it avoid assorted problems where
    'compatible' isn't really good enough.

    Consider the case of

    Take MIT source
    Is it GPL compatible ?
    Yes
    Add GPL Compatible tag
    Compile
    Ship user the binary (under the MIT license), lock the source away

    Conside also the case of

    Public domain
    Put into kernel
    Oh look no patent transfer clause
    Sue recipient of kernel

    There are good legal reasons we did it the way we did. This shouldn't be
    changed without a proper legal evaluation.

    Dual Foo/GPL is not the same as GPL compatible.

    NAK

    Alan


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-07 21:05    [W:0.019 / U:32.444 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site