Re: [RFC v3 00/13] linux: generalize sections, ranges and linker tables

James Bottomley
2016-08-15T22:44:51Z

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