Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:11:40 +0100 (CET) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][RFC] module: Cure the MODULE_LICENSE "GPL" vs. "GPL v2" bogosity |
| |
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019, Jessica Yu wrote: > +++ Thomas Gleixner [28/01/19 23:38 +0100]: > > + "GPL" Module is licensed under GPL version 2. This > > + does not express any distinction between > > + GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later. The exact > > + license information can only be determined > > + via the license information in the > > + corresponding source files. > > + > > + "GPL v2" Same as "GPL v2". It exists for historic > > + reasons. > > Did you mean to say 'Same as "GPL"' here? (as in, "GPL v2" conveys the same > information as the "GPL" module license string)
Of course. After staring at all this for too long I confused myself and did not spot it even if I read through the whole thing several times.
> > + > > + "GPL and additional rights" Historical variant of expressing that the > > + module source is dual licensed under a > > + GPL v2 variant and MIT license. Please do > > + not use in new code. > > + > > + "Dual MIT/GPL" The correct way of expressing that the > > + module is dual licensed under a GPL v2 > > + variant or MIT license choice. > > + > > + "Dual BSD/GPL" The module is dual licensed under a GPL v2 > > + variant or BSD license choice. The exact > > + variant of the BSD license can only be > > + determined via the license information > > + in the corresponding source files. > > + > > + "Dual MPL/GPL" The module is dual licensed under a GPL v2 > > + variant or Mozilla Public License (MPL) > > + choice. The exact variant of the MPL > > + license can only be determined via the > > + license information in the corresponding > > + source files. > > + > > + "Proprietary" The module is under a proprietary license. > > + This string is soleley for proprietary third > > s/soleley/solely/ > > Otherwise looks good. Thanks for clearing this all up.
Thanks for having a sharp look!
tglx
| |