From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758494Ab2DGA2g (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Apr 2012 20:28:36 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:48565 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758478Ab2DGA2e (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Apr 2012 20:28:34 -0400 Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 01:28:28 +0100 From: Al Viro To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Keith Packard , Ralf Baechle , David Woodhouse , Stephen Hemminger , "John W. Linville" , Linus Torvalds , Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH] module: Clarify GPL-Compatible is OK Message-ID: <20120407002828.GG6589@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <1333757482-16204-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@frijolero.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1333757482-16204-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@frijolero.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 05:11:22PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > 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. > This has been well documented by SFLC through their "Maintaining > Permissive-Licensed Files in a GPL-Licensed Project: Guidelines for > Developers" [0] which was inspired by the ambiguity of the MadWifi > Project's Dual BSD/GPL license tradition. The list of GPL-Compatible > licenses can be found on the FSF's website [1]. This is obvious crap. Explain to me, please, what makes your "GPL compatible" different from "GPLv2"; at least that would be honest ("we have relicensed a copy of BSD/GPL code to GPL alone - the license allows that and any modifications done here are declared GPL-only, so you can't pull them into the BSD-licensed variants") "GPL compatible" is not a license; it's a set of licenses. Incidentally, belonging to that set is irrelevant to legality of including into the kernel, since GPLv3 a member and it's *NOT* compatible with the kernel license. since GPLv3 a member and it's *NOT* compatible with the kernel license.