From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [RFC v3 00/13] linux: generalize sections, ranges and linker tables Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:44:47 -0700 Message-ID: <1471301087.2428.48.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <1469222687-1600-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20160809152429.5bb1c077@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1470758947.2299.47.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dwmw2@infradead.org, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, "Luis R. Rodriguez" , anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com, will.deacon@arm.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, korea.drzix@gmail.com, mingo@redhat.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, jgross@suse.com, tglx@linutronix.de, keescook@chromium.org, ananth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, hpa@zytor.com, arnd@arndb.de, davem@davemloft.net, One Thousand Gnomes , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, jkosina@suse.cz, david.vrabel@citrix.com, realmz6@gmail.com, fontana@sharpeleven.org, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, ananth@in.ibm.com, paul.gortmaker@windriver.c List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 21:51 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Aug 9, 2016 7:09 PM, "James Bottomley" < > James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 15:24 +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > > > table development go under copyleft-next, Rusty recently asked > > > > for code to go in prior to the license tag being added denoting > > > > this license as GPL-compatible [3] -- I had noted in the patch > > > > submission which annotated copyleft-next's compatibility to > > > > GPLv2 that copyleft-next is the license of choice for ongoing > > > > kernel development on my end [4]. If this is objectionable I'm > > > > happy to change it to GPLv2 however I'd like a reason provided > > > > as I've gone through all possible channels to ensure this is > > > > kosher, including vetting by 3 attorneys now, 2 at SUSE. > > > > > > You don't need a new tag, you can use "GPL" or "GPL and > > > additional rights". In fact you don't want any other tag because > > > when combined with the kernel it is GPLv2 anyway because the > > > only way the two are fully compatible is for the kernel community > > > to license the derived work under the GPL. > > > > This is the module tag ... it says what licence the module is > > under, not the licence for the module combined with the kernel, > > which is always GPLv2 because the stricter licence rules. > > Then why isn't "BSD" in the license_is_gpl_compatible list? [Sorry about this, the list seems to have stopped sending me copies of stuff I'm on the to: line for; not sure why. Anyway, having fished this copy out of my trash:] It is, here specifically: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ModifiedBSD James From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:50730 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932206AbcHOWov (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2016 18:44:51 -0400 Message-ID: <1471301087.2428.48.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [RFC v3 00/13] linux: generalize sections, ranges and linker tables From: James Bottomley Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:44:47 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <1469222687-1600-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20160809152429.5bb1c077@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1470758947.2299.47.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dwmw2@infradead.org, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, "Luis R. Rodriguez" , anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com, will.deacon@arm.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, korea.drzix@gmail.com, mingo@redhat.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, jgross@suse.com, tglx@linutronix.de, keescook@chromium.org, ananth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, hpa@zytor.com, arnd@arndb.de, davem@davemloft.net, One Thousand Gnomes , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, jkosina@suse.cz, david.vrabel@citrix.com, realmz6@gmail.com, fontana@sharpeleven.org, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, ananth@in.ibm.com, paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, pali.rohar@gmail.com, ak@linux.intel.com, pebolle@tiscali.nl, jbaron@akamai.com, mmarek@suse.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, tony.luck@intel.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, dvhart@infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ming.lei@canonical.com, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, christopher.denicolo@suse.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, mcb30@ipxe.org, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, mhiramat@kernel.org, ciaran.farrell@suse.com, bp@alien8.de, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, alan@linux.intel.com Message-ID: <20160815224447.Qd3sVKqEspIIQxG6x81jZSP-deI7zWmc0fXpPIhVZqw@z> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 21:51 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Aug 9, 2016 7:09 PM, "James Bottomley" < > James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 15:24 +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > > > table development go under copyleft-next, Rusty recently asked > > > > for code to go in prior to the license tag being added denoting > > > > this license as GPL-compatible [3] -- I had noted in the patch > > > > submission which annotated copyleft-next's compatibility to > > > > GPLv2 that copyleft-next is the license of choice for ongoing > > > > kernel development on my end [4]. If this is objectionable I'm > > > > happy to change it to GPLv2 however I'd like a reason provided > > > > as I've gone through all possible channels to ensure this is > > > > kosher, including vetting by 3 attorneys now, 2 at SUSE. > > > > > > You don't need a new tag, you can use "GPL" or "GPL and > > > additional rights". In fact you don't want any other tag because > > > when combined with the kernel it is GPLv2 anyway because the > > > only way the two are fully compatible is for the kernel community > > > to license the derived work under the GPL. > > > > This is the module tag ... it says what licence the module is > > under, not the licence for the module combined with the kernel, > > which is always GPLv2 because the stricter licence rules. > > Then why isn't "BSD" in the license_is_gpl_compatible list? [Sorry about this, the list seems to have stopped sending me copies of stuff I'm on the to: line for; not sure why. Anyway, having fished this copy out of my trash:] It is, here specifically: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ModifiedBSD James