archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Zavras, Alexios" <>
To: J Lovejoy <>,
	"" <>
Subject: RE: efficacy of MODULE_LICENSE
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 14:12:19 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

J Lovejoy wrote:
>> On Jul 10, 2019, at 3:38 AM, Greg KH <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 10:28:59PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote:
>>> - the MODULE_LICENSE info was never meant to be definitive license 
>>> info, but seemingly more of an approximation.  I’m wondering if 
>>> others have a different view?
>> MODULE_LICENSE predated SPDX by a decade or so, and was designed to 
>> solve a totally different use case.  I would not try to mix the two, 
>> or infer one from the other.
> yes. And I can understand the different use case, I guess my concern/question
> is does the existence of MODULE_LICENSE info that sort of contradicts
> the actual license info for the file (when looking just at that file,
> not the combined/resulting image) frustrate the goal of having clean licensing
> info for when people run scans over the kernel?
> or maybe the answer is yes, in a strict scanning sense, but because
> MODULE_LICENSE is used for a different purpose, so be it… scanners
> are going to pick it up and people will just have to understand the above?
> mostly, I want to confirm that the SPDX identifier for a file in this case
> can simply be: ISC (not BSD, or GPL) 

I think we should all agree that MODULE_LICENSE was never intended
to actually record the exact license -- only to give some information
on the "GPL-ness" of a module. The naming is unfortunate, but that's
historical decisions for you and we have to live with it.

Scanning tools should not rely on it (and its limited set of possible values)
to determine actual licenses of modules not integrated in the kernel  --
and an SPDX line with "ISC" (or whatever) should always be the determining input.

Do we need to document this anywhere to be absolutely clear?

-- zvr
Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0,
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Gary Kershaw
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-07-10 14:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-10  4:28 efficacy of MODULE_LICENSE J Lovejoy
2019-07-10  9:38 ` Greg KH
2019-07-10 13:41   ` J Lovejoy
2019-07-10 14:09     ` Armijn Hemel - Tjaldur Software Governance Solutions
2019-07-10 14:12     ` Zavras, Alexios [this message]
2019-07-10 18:55       ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-10 16:06     ` Greg KH

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).