From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Halasa Subject: Re: writable limits to -next Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:35:11 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4AC6339B.7000905@gmail.com> <20091006225751.7d5f3eec.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <4AE16B0A.7020400@gmail.com> <20091026094741.5a1d492c.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091026094741.5a1d492c.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> (Stephen Rothwell's message of "Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:47:41 +1100") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Jiri Slaby , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , James Morris , Stephen Smalley , Eric Paris , Andrew Morton List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org Hi, BTW you may want to check if the current wording is correct: Stephen Rothwell writes: > You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have > been: > * submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It's not ok to submit under e.g. GPL v3 only, I'd suggest "under GPL v2 and optionally other licence(s)" or something like that. For example code under BSD-style licence (in addition to GPLv2) is present in Linux, though I think any additional licence (the "later" as in "GPL v2 or later", GPL v3, MS EULA etc.) is acceptable as long as it is really additional, i.e., if one can ignore it and "use" GPLv2 exclusively. IANAL of course. -- Krzysztof Halasa