Re: [PATCH] docs/licensing: Clarify wording about "GPL" and "Proprietary"

[Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>]

Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@kernel.org> writes:

> There are currently some doubts about out-of-tree kernel modules licensed
> under GPLv3 and if they are supposed to be able to use symbols exported
> using EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
>
> Clarify that "Proprietary" means anything non-GPL2 even though the
> license might be an open source license. Also disambiguate "GPL
> compatible" to "GPLv2 compatible".
>
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@kernel.org>
> ---
> Hello,
>
> these are the locations that I found by a quick grep. If you spot a
> document that needs similar updating, please tell.
>
> The change in license-rules.rst looks bigger than it actually is due to
> changing where the line wrappings occur. With `git diff --word-diff` it
> reduces to:
>
>     "Proprietary"                 The module is under a proprietary license.
>                                   {+"Proprietary" is to be understood only as+}
> {+                                "The license is not compatible to GPLv2".+}
>                                   This string is solely for [-proprietary-]{+non-GPL2 compatible+}
>                                   third party modules and cannot be used for
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
>  Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst |  2 +-
>  Documentation/process/license-rules.rst  | 18 ++++++++++--------
>  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

There seem to be no objections, so I've applied this.

Thanks,

jon