Linux-SPDX Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
* [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: clarify driver licensing rules
@ 2020-08-14 14:56 Dave Hansen
  2020-08-17 15:48 ` Greg KH
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Dave Hansen @ 2020-08-14 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel
  Cc: Dave Hansen, dan.j.williams, h.peter.anvin, tglx, gregkh, corbet,
	linux-spdx, linux-doc


From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>

Greg has challenged some recent driver submitters on their license
choices. He was correct to do so, as the choices in these instances
did not always advance the aims of the submitters.

But, this left submitters (and the folks who help them pick licenses)
a bit confused. They have read things like
Documentation/process/license-rules.rst which says:

	individual source files can have a different license
	which is required to be compatible with the GPL-2.0

and Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst:

	We don't insist on any kind of exclusive GPL licensing,
	and if you wish ... you may well wish to release under
	multiple licenses.

As written, these appear a _bit_ more laissez faire than we've been in
practice lately. It sounds like we at least expect submitters to make
a well-reasoned license choice and to explain their rationale. It does
not appear that we blindly accept anything that is simply
GPLv2-compatible.

Drivers appear to be the most acute source of misunderstanding, so fix
the driver documentation first. Update it to clarify expectations.

Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <h.peter.anvin@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

--

Changes from v1:
 * Remove mention of maintainers enforcing particular license
   choices.
 * Change the wording to ensure that folks understand that the
   trigger that requires an explanation is not multiple
   licenses per se, but non-GPL licenses.  You could argue that
   GPLv2-or-later is multiple liceses, for instance.
---

 b/Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst |    9 +++++----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff -puN Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst~clarify-dual-licensing Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst
--- a/Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst~clarify-dual-licensing	2020-08-14 07:42:06.300480229 -0700
+++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst	2020-08-14 07:53:10.373478573 -0700
@@ -60,10 +60,11 @@ What Criteria Determine Acceptance
 
 Licensing:
 		The code must be released to us under the
-		GNU General Public License. We don't insist on any kind
-		of exclusive GPL licensing, and if you wish the driver
-		to be useful to other communities such as BSD you may well
-		wish to release under multiple licenses.
+		GNU General Public License. If you wish the driver to be
+		useful to other communities such as BSD you may release
+		under multiple licenses. If you choose to release under
+		licenses other than the GPL, you should include your
+		rationale for your license choices in your cover letter.
 		See accepted licenses at include/linux/module.h
 
 Copyright:
_

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: clarify driver licensing rules
  2020-08-14 14:56 [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: clarify driver licensing rules Dave Hansen
@ 2020-08-17 15:48 ` Greg KH
  2020-08-31 22:37 ` Jonathan Corbet
  2020-08-31 23:03 ` H. Peter Anvin
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2020-08-17 15:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dave Hansen
  Cc: linux-kernel, dan.j.williams, h.peter.anvin, tglx, corbet,
	linux-spdx, linux-doc

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 07:56:25AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
> 
> Greg has challenged some recent driver submitters on their license
> choices. He was correct to do so, as the choices in these instances
> did not always advance the aims of the submitters.
> 
> But, this left submitters (and the folks who help them pick licenses)
> a bit confused. They have read things like
> Documentation/process/license-rules.rst which says:
> 
> 	individual source files can have a different license
> 	which is required to be compatible with the GPL-2.0
> 
> and Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst:
> 
> 	We don't insist on any kind of exclusive GPL licensing,
> 	and if you wish ... you may well wish to release under
> 	multiple licenses.
> 
> As written, these appear a _bit_ more laissez faire than we've been in
> practice lately. It sounds like we at least expect submitters to make
> a well-reasoned license choice and to explain their rationale. It does
> not appear that we blindly accept anything that is simply
> GPLv2-compatible.
> 
> Drivers appear to be the most acute source of misunderstanding, so fix
> the driver documentation first. Update it to clarify expectations.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <h.peter.anvin@intel.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> Cc: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> 
> --
> 
> Changes from v1:
>  * Remove mention of maintainers enforcing particular license
>    choices.
>  * Change the wording to ensure that folks understand that the
>    trigger that requires an explanation is not multiple
>    licenses per se, but non-GPL licenses.  You could argue that
>    GPLv2-or-later is multiple liceses, for instance.
> ---
> 
>  b/Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst |    9 +++++----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff -puN Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst~clarify-dual-licensing Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst
> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst~clarify-dual-licensing	2020-08-14 07:42:06.300480229 -0700
> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst	2020-08-14 07:53:10.373478573 -0700
> @@ -60,10 +60,11 @@ What Criteria Determine Acceptance
>  
>  Licensing:
>  		The code must be released to us under the
> -		GNU General Public License. We don't insist on any kind
> -		of exclusive GPL licensing, and if you wish the driver
> -		to be useful to other communities such as BSD you may well
> -		wish to release under multiple licenses.
> +		GNU General Public License. If you wish the driver to be
> +		useful to other communities such as BSD you may release
> +		under multiple licenses. If you choose to release under
> +		licenses other than the GPL, you should include your
> +		rationale for your license choices in your cover letter.
>  		See accepted licenses at include/linux/module.h
>  
>  Copyright:
> _

Looks good, thanks for the modifications:

Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: clarify driver licensing rules
  2020-08-14 14:56 [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: clarify driver licensing rules Dave Hansen
  2020-08-17 15:48 ` Greg KH
@ 2020-08-31 22:37 ` Jonathan Corbet
  2020-08-31 23:03 ` H. Peter Anvin
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2020-08-31 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dave Hansen
  Cc: linux-kernel, dan.j.williams, h.peter.anvin, tglx, gregkh,
	linux-spdx, linux-doc

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 07:56:25 -0700
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> Greg has challenged some recent driver submitters on their license
> choices. He was correct to do so, as the choices in these instances
> did not always advance the aims of the submitters.
> 
> But, this left submitters (and the folks who help them pick licenses)
> a bit confused. They have read things like
> Documentation/process/license-rules.rst which says:
> 
> 	individual source files can have a different license
> 	which is required to be compatible with the GPL-2.0
> 
> and Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst:
> 
> 	We don't insist on any kind of exclusive GPL licensing,
> 	and if you wish ... you may well wish to release under
> 	multiple licenses.
> 
> As written, these appear a _bit_ more laissez faire than we've been in
> practice lately. It sounds like we at least expect submitters to make
> a well-reasoned license choice and to explain their rationale. It does
> not appear that we blindly accept anything that is simply
> GPLv2-compatible.
> 
> Drivers appear to be the most acute source of misunderstanding, so fix
> the driver documentation first. Update it to clarify expectations.

Applied, thanks.

jon

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: clarify driver licensing rules
  2020-08-14 14:56 [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: clarify driver licensing rules Dave Hansen
  2020-08-17 15:48 ` Greg KH
  2020-08-31 22:37 ` Jonathan Corbet
@ 2020-08-31 23:03 ` H. Peter Anvin
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: H. Peter Anvin @ 2020-08-31 23:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dave Hansen, linux-kernel
  Cc: dan.j.williams, tglx, gregkh, corbet, linux-spdx, linux-doc

On 2020-08-14 07:56, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
> 
> Greg has challenged some recent driver submitters on their license
> choices. He was correct to do so, as the choices in these instances
> did not always advance the aims of the submitters.
> 
> But, this left submitters (and the folks who help them pick licenses)
> a bit confused. They have read things like
> Documentation/process/license-rules.rst which says:
> 
> 	individual source files can have a different license
> 	which is required to be compatible with the GPL-2.0
> 
> and Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst:
> 
> 	We don't insist on any kind of exclusive GPL licensing,
> 	and if you wish ... you may well wish to release under
> 	multiple licenses.
> 
> As written, these appear a _bit_ more laissez faire than we've been in
> practice lately. It sounds like we at least expect submitters to make
> a well-reasoned license choice and to explain their rationale. It does
> not appear that we blindly accept anything that is simply
> GPLv2-compatible.
> 
> Drivers appear to be the most acute source of misunderstanding, so fix
> the driver documentation first. Update it to clarify expectations.
> 

Well written! Retroactive Ack from me :)

	-hpa


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, back to index

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-08-14 14:56 [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: clarify driver licensing rules Dave Hansen
2020-08-17 15:48 ` Greg KH
2020-08-31 22:37 ` Jonathan Corbet
2020-08-31 23:03 ` H. Peter Anvin

Linux-SPDX Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-spdx/0 linux-spdx/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-spdx linux-spdx/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-spdx \
		linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-spdx

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-spdx


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git