Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1434109

Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible

Show all headers | View raw

On wo, 2016-06-29 at 15:01 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Long ago I reached similar conclusion and question, and therefore
> proposed a simple GPL-Compatible tag then as a replacement [0]. A few
> agreed [1], but others had a lot of reasons why we need to be explicit
> about tags for new licenses. I recommend the full thread reading if
> you are interested about more details, to me perhaps the best
> explanation of why we need explicit tags is the points Alan raised
> over historic incompatibilities and also of course new
> incompatibilities found [2]. Finding compatibility requires work and
> due diligence. That work was done here and as such a new tag is added.
> 
> [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1333757482-16204-1-git-send-email-mcgrof
> @frijolero.org
> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120407002723.GA14568@kroah.com
> [2] 
> 
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120408181227.5d9430d9@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk

Thanks, I wasn't aware of your previous work here.

But perhaps it wasn't clear I was talking only about the license ident:
the machine readable module tag. The tag that allows us to taint a
kernel when a proprietary module is loaded.

Most modules already have a comment in their files detailing the license
of that module. Why should that comment be summarized in the license
ident?

Requiring such a summary in the ident also means that mismatches can
occur: cases where the license ident doesn't actually match the comment
detailing the license of the module.

A choice between, say, "GPL v2 compatible" and "Proprietary" for license
idents allows us to taint the kernel if needed and still allows any GPL
v2 compatible (dual) license to be used for the module.

This requires proper license comments for modules. Most modules already
use those.

It also requires checking whether the license detailed in that comment
really is GPL v2 compatible. I'm guessing some people are actually doing
that. (I can't personally recall any discussion on a patch submitting an
improperly licensed module. But that must have probably already
happened.)


Paul Bolle

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2016-06-29 21:10 +0200
  Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-06-29 21:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2016-06-29 22:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> - 2016-06-29 22:20 +0200
  Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl> - 2016-06-29 23:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2016-06-30 00:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl> - 2016-06-30 00:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2016-06-30 01:10 +0200
          Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl> - 2016-06-30 01:30 +0200
            Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2016-06-30 01:40 +0200

csiph-web