From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F855C169C4 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:18:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11E45204EC for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:18:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nexb-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@nexb-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="1I8c1M0N" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731767AbfAaPSv (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jan 2019 10:18:51 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-f67.google.com ([209.85.221.67]:35335 "EHLO mail-wr1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726239AbfAaPSu (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jan 2019 10:18:50 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-f67.google.com with SMTP id 96so3761541wrb.2 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 07:18:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nexb-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+u65UW/bzBKl4uWpN9QXuoMUi4J86OV7xIXFJ1qNaUU=; b=1I8c1M0NQSh67W/eAkn5R4CDhhUAOOXLhZP/W1HIlmY/iiEeK9E5Rz7VTsNrJ3meXN Jyd49UE3kHpJ7GUBNQ4+85epMPFuVV1LovwmhdQWxFdKma5hVQ1klLMRO3+oTYR26TUs miwSe8b/64DW1wqev+a/zs8PCz5iBn4S63Jfshp5UGcRMBE+iZYA7KDTZUbU8HPSk/y/ RsTw6PE/T92wTZB8/dc4Mt3muWcyuACfY4Jxmjwln+vDVBCEoVgDrTpS8xiP9jCJHcfZ Xu/sfgbdqZiFROwRsty3FrfOwIwVb5+0yPeNEk7ASw+RKrE0c9iv3rEbZG2lOp4a3Mvy 71Xw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+u65UW/bzBKl4uWpN9QXuoMUi4J86OV7xIXFJ1qNaUU=; b=LmOZI7Krht6hrOphW98xbGUPplMdTyDubqRtZOn1cY/egKDG8OSLmgSEKRtyDp3LAz aviHoo1B3DJrqL88a+Gv813nmHbeTtaEuMKWPFJNAph/BCsTmUDkCOjz6hWn2wZjoDlr iFXxn6CDVxpo18SCFO9i/y/0mRlNY4khNR22XmzM7yNvuP8eWfHi9hJq1KiN5ZCxRcKM cVoc44WyQg5nVmRBVXQgHWyvBQfEXxgsFLqebWMibqyeKn488/R7H+UCr7jtFc9/LzLT +TzsT1STrsabrCZbFzdJwgqJFSDEuty85RczeOzZwpKKxO75TfzO7d200jB1Ja6urrX/ Zxgw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukc4XgOGniargSl37Ramss1uPE0KyrwEeSmlAs11vXss2g8M39Hm 38I+EPfmVYiUTyGVraLk9Lw2Trcwl+wKd8l4+lMN+g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4Z0h25omVOfwxNsc+AHEiAXfQ+5qsGS/7hUpPR0K8E6wWIQhgjHKuSRk9epwYSJjwS9d8/Y2scUtfNG0rAFlw= X-Received: by 2002:adf:e149:: with SMTP id f9mr37638031wri.42.1548947929021; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 07:18:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Philippe Ombredanne Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 16:18:13 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] module: Cure the MODULE_LICENSE "GPL" vs. "GPL v2" bogosity To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: LKML , Linus Torvalds , Greg KH , Jonathan Corbet , Jessica Yu , Alan Cox , Rusty Russell , Christoph Hellwig , Kate Stewart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Thomas: On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:39 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote: [...] > As an unintended side effect this distinction causes a major headache for > license compliance, license scanners and the ongoing effort to clean up the > license mess of the kernel. Glad to be of service and sorry for having helped a bit surface these! > > Therefore remove the well meant, but ill defined, distinction between "GPL" > and "GPL v2" and document that: > > - "GPL" and "GPL v2" both express that the module is licensed under GPLv2 > (without a distinction of 'only' and 'or later') and is therefore kernel > license compliant. > > - None of the MODULE_LICENSE strings can be used for expressing or > determining the exact license > > - Their sole purpose is to decide whether the module is free software or > not. > > Add a MODULE_LICENSE subsection to the license rule documentation as well. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Thank you ++ for documenting all this : this is a small change but a big step towards licensing clarity! Great that you found the commit that introduced this too. Feel free to add this if you want: Acked-by: Philippe Ombredanne -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne