From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752037AbcF2XCA (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 29 Jun 2016 19:02:00 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:53877 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751911AbcF2XB4 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 29 Jun 2016 19:01:56 -0400
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 01:01:53 +0200
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ciaran Farrell <ciaran.farrell@suse.com>,
        Christopher De Nicolo <christopher.denicolo@suse.com>,
        Richard Fontana <fontana@sharpeleven.org>,
        Discussion and development of copyleft-next 
	<copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org>,
        One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible
Message-ID: <20160629230153.GM31219@wotan.suse.de>
References: <1465929311-13509-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <20160629190547.GB31219@wotan.suse.de>
 <1467236613.26658.47.camel@tiscali.nl>
 <CAB=NE6WdBVB+J2m1YPDpG8K5tc9XBiPtmEodOriPad3vFcU+GA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1467240323.26658.69.camel@tiscali.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1467240323.26658.69.camel@tiscali.nl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:45:23AM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On wo, 2016-06-29 at 15:01 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Long ago I reached similar conclusion and question, and therefore
> > proposed a simple GPL-Compatible tag then as a replacement [0]. A few
> > agreed [1], but others had a lot of reasons why we need to be explicit
> > about tags for new licenses. I recommend the full thread reading if
> > you are interested about more details, to me perhaps the best
> > explanation of why we need explicit tags is the points Alan raised
> > over historic incompatibilities and also of course new
> > incompatibilities found [2]. Finding compatibility requires work and
> > due diligence. That work was done here and as such a new tag is added.
> > 
> > [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1333757482-16204-1-git-send-email-mcgrof
> > @frijolero.org
> > [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120407002723.GA14568@kroah.com
> > [2] 
> > 
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120408181227.5d9430d9@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk
> 
> Thanks, I wasn't aware of your previous work here.
> 
> But perhaps it wasn't clear I was talking only about the license ident:
> the machine readable module tag. The tag that allows us to taint a
> kernel when a proprietary module is loaded.
> 
> Most modules already have a comment in their files detailing the license
> of that module. Why should that comment be summarized in the license
> ident?

Because run time license counts, please read the full thread and prior
discussions.

  Luis