lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH][RFC] module: Cure the MODULE_LICENSE "GPL" vs. "GPL v2" bogosity
Thomas:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:39 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
[...]
> As an unintended side effect this distinction causes a major headache for
> license compliance, license scanners and the ongoing effort to clean up the
> license mess of the kernel.

Glad to be of service and sorry for having helped a bit surface these!

>
> Therefore remove the well meant, but ill defined, distinction between "GPL"
> and "GPL v2" and document that:
>
> - "GPL" and "GPL v2" both express that the module is licensed under GPLv2
> (without a distinction of 'only' and 'or later') and is therefore kernel
> license compliant.
>
> - None of the MODULE_LICENSE strings can be used for expressing or
> determining the exact license
>
> - Their sole purpose is to decide whether the module is free software or
> not.
>
> Add a MODULE_LICENSE subsection to the license rule documentation as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>


Thank you ++ for documenting all this : this is a small change but a big
step towards licensing clarity! Great that you found the commit that
introduced this too.

Feel free to add this if you want:
Acked-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>

--
Cordially

Philippe Ombredanne

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-31 16:19    [W:0.119 / U:5.040 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site