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 S1751735AbcF2WBs (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 29 Jun 2016 18:01:48 -0400
Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:39326 "EHLO mail.kernel.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751499AbcF2WBr (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 29 Jun 2016 18:01:47 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1467236613.26658.47.camel@tiscali.nl>
References: <1465929311-13509-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <20160629190547.GB31219@wotan.suse.de> <1467236613.26658.47.camel@tiscali.nl>
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:01:22 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAB=NE6WdBVB+J2m1YPDpG8K5tc9XBiPtmEodOriPad3vFcU+GA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAB=NE6WdBVB+J2m1YPDpG8K5tc9XBiPtmEodOriPad3vFcU+GA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible
To: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
Cc: 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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl> wrote:
> On wo, 2016-06-29 at 21:05 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> I haven't seen any objections or questions, so just a friendly *poke*.
>
> At the end of the day, what matters most is whether a module is GPL v2
> compatible. So why are the specific license idents for the various GPL
> v2 compatible licenses actually needed?

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

  Luis