From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Lutomirski Subject: Re: [RFC v3 00/13] linux: generalize sections, ranges and linker tables Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 21:51:13 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1469222687-1600-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20160809152429.5bb1c077@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1470758947.2299.47.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4245753166950360238==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1470758947.2299.47.camel@HansenPartnership.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Sender: "Xen-devel" To: James Bottomley Cc: One Thousand Gnomes , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, realmz6@gmail.com, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, ming.lei@canonical.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, hpa@zytor.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, x86@kernel.org, anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com, fontana@sharpeleven.org, mingo@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, dvhart@infradead.org, dwmw2@infradead.org, mhiramat@kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, keescook@chromium.org, arnd@arndb.de, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, will.deacon@arm.com, pali.rohar@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, christopher.denicolo@suse.com, jbaron@akamai.com, ananth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, ciaran.farrell@suse. List-Id: platform-driver-x86.vger.kernel.org --===============4245753166950360238== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c125290335bf30539b06628 --94eb2c125290335bf30539b06628 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Aug 9, 2016 7:09 PM, "James Bottomley" < James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 15:24 +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > > table development go under copyleft-next, Rusty recently asked for > > > code to go in prior to the license tag being added denoting this > > > license as GPL-compatible [3] -- I had noted in the patch > > > submission which annotated copyleft-next's compatibility to GPLv2 > > > that copyleft-next is the license of choice for ongoing kernel > > > development on my end [4]. If this is objectionable I'm happy to > > > change it to GPLv2 however I'd like a reason provided as I've gone > > > through all possible channels to ensure this is kosher, including > > > vetting by 3 attorneys now, 2 at SUSE. > > > > You don't need a new tag, you can use "GPL" or "GPL and additional > > rights". In fact you don't want any other tag because when combined > > with the kernel it is GPLv2 anyway because the only way the two are > > fully compatible is for the kernel community to license the derived > > work under the GPL. > > This is the module tag ... it says what licence the module is under, > not the licence for the module combined with the kernel, which is > always GPLv2 because the stricter licence rules. Then why isn't "BSD" in the license_is_gpl_compatible list? --94eb2c125290335bf30539b06628 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Aug 9, 2016 7:09 PM, "James Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@hansen= partnership.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 15:24 +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > > table development go under copyleft-next, Rusty recently ask= ed for
> > > code to go in prior to the license tag being added denoting = this
> > > license as GPL-compatible [3] -- I had noted in the patch > > > submission which annotated copyleft-next's compatibility= to GPLv2
> > > that copyleft-next is the license of choice for ongoing kern= el
> > > development on my end [4]. If this is objectionable I'm = happy to
> > > change it to GPLv2 however I'd like a reason provided as= I've gone
> > > through all possible channels to ensure this is kosher, incl= uding
> > > vetting by 3 attorneys now, 2 at SUSE.
> >
> > You don't need a new tag, you can use "GPL" or &quo= t;GPL and additional
> > rights". In fact you don't want any other tag because wh= en combined
> >=C2=A0 with the kernel it is GPLv2 anyway because the only way the= two are
> > fully compatible is for the kernel community to license the deriv= ed
> > work under the GPL.
>
> This is the module tag ... it says what licence the module is under, > not the licence for the module combined with the kernel, which is
> always GPLv2 because the stricter licence rules.

Then why isn't "BSD" in the license_is_gpl_com= patible list?

--94eb2c125290335bf30539b06628-- --===============4245753166950360238== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KWGVuLWRldmVs IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdApYZW4tZGV2ZWxAbGlzdHMueGVuLm9yZwpodHRwczovL2xpc3RzLnhlbi5v cmcveGVuLWRldmVsCg== --===============4245753166950360238==-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1470758947.2299.47.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <1469222687-1600-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20160809152429.5bb1c077@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1470758947.2299.47.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 21:51:13 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC v3 00/13] linux: generalize sections, ranges and linker tables Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c125290335bf30539b06628 To: James Bottomley Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dwmw2@infradead.org, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, "Luis R. Rodriguez" , anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com, will.deacon@arm.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, korea.drzix@gmail.com, mingo@redhat.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, jgross@suse.com, tglx@linutronix.de, keescook@chromium.org, ananth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, hpa@zytor.com, arnd@arndb.de, davem@davemloft.net, One Thousand Gnomes , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, jkosina@suse.cz, david.vrabel@citrix.com, realmz6@gmail.com, fontana@sharpeleven.org, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, ananth@in.ibm.com, paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, pali.rohar@gmail.com, ak@linux.intel.com, pebolle@tiscali.nl, jbaron@akamai.com, mmarek@suse.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, tony.luck@intel.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, dvhart@infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ming.lei@canonical.com, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, christopher.denicolo@suse.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, mcb30@ipxe.org, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, mhiramat@kernel.org, ciaran.farrell@suse.com, bp@alien8.de, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, alan@linux.intel.com List-ID: Message-ID: <20160810045113.8W45uKd5lnycOolk9iDS2cgJluCH6MoPu0ityFEWbNA@z> --94eb2c125290335bf30539b06628 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Aug 9, 2016 7:09 PM, "James Bottomley" < James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 15:24 +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > > table development go under copyleft-next, Rusty recently asked for > > > code to go in prior to the license tag being added denoting this > > > license as GPL-compatible [3] -- I had noted in the patch > > > submission which annotated copyleft-next's compatibility to GPLv2 > > > that copyleft-next is the license of choice for ongoing kernel > > > development on my end [4]. If this is objectionable I'm happy to > > > change it to GPLv2 however I'd like a reason provided as I've gone > > > through all possible channels to ensure this is kosher, including > > > vetting by 3 attorneys now, 2 at SUSE. > > > > You don't need a new tag, you can use "GPL" or "GPL and additional > > rights". In fact you don't want any other tag because when combined > > with the kernel it is GPLv2 anyway because the only way the two are > > fully compatible is for the kernel community to license the derived > > work under the GPL. > > This is the module tag ... it says what licence the module is under, > not the licence for the module combined with the kernel, which is > always GPLv2 because the stricter licence rules. Then why isn't "BSD" in the license_is_gpl_compatible list? --94eb2c125290335bf30539b06628 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Aug 9, 2016 7:09 PM, "James Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@hansen= partnership.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 15:24 +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > > table development go under copyleft-next, Rusty recently ask= ed for
> > > code to go in prior to the license tag being added denoting = this
> > > license as GPL-compatible [3] -- I had noted in the patch > > > submission which annotated copyleft-next's compatibility= to GPLv2
> > > that copyleft-next is the license of choice for ongoing kern= el
> > > development on my end [4]. If this is objectionable I'm = happy to
> > > change it to GPLv2 however I'd like a reason provided as= I've gone
> > > through all possible channels to ensure this is kosher, incl= uding
> > > vetting by 3 attorneys now, 2 at SUSE.
> >
> > You don't need a new tag, you can use "GPL" or &quo= t;GPL and additional
> > rights". In fact you don't want any other tag because wh= en combined
> >=C2=A0 with the kernel it is GPLv2 anyway because the only way the= two are
> > fully compatible is for the kernel community to license the deriv= ed
> > work under the GPL.
>
> This is the module tag ... it says what licence the module is under, > not the licence for the module combined with the kernel, which is
> always GPLv2 because the stricter licence rules.

Then why isn't "BSD" in the license_is_gpl_com= patible list?

--94eb2c125290335bf30539b06628--