Re: [PATCH] module: Clarify GPL-Compatible is OK

From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@frijolero.org>
Cc: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module: Clarify GPL-Compatible is OK
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 18:12:27 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120408181227.5d9430d9@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAB=NE6X1NFLn6UfPHyNP9_uFTCdYUbtoTP0ds+0YT3_oFCZTSQ@mail.gmail.com>

> > Dual licensing avoids some confusions, it also removes the worry about
> > possible unanticipated incompatibility. Right now if a court somewhere
> > says "Hey you know what - BSD and GPL are not compatible because XYZ" the
> > fact it is dual licensed avoids problems.
> 
> Interesting, I had not considered that case, is this really likely to
> happen now, I mean at least with the list of licenses listed as
> GPL-Compatible on the FSF site?

I would be very surprised - but why chance it ?

> in perspective to what extent do we want to remain speculative over
> the list the FSF provides on GPL-Compatibility for the Linux kernel?
> Are there, say, at least a few GPL-Compatible licenses which we are
> comfortable with in assuming GPL-Compatibility moving forward?

IMHO it's up to whoever wants another tag badly enough to submit a change
for it. Consider it optimising the problem by delayed evaluation.

Alan