From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752326Ab2DGVPU (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Apr 2012 17:15:20 -0400 Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:40128 "EHLO test.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751640Ab2DGVPS (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Apr 2012 17:15:18 -0400 Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 17:15:12 -0400 From: "Ted Ts'o" To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: Linus Torvalds , rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Keith Packard , Ralf Baechle , David Woodhouse , Stephen Hemminger , "John W. Linville" , Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH] module: Clarify GPL-Compatible is OK Message-ID: <20120407211512.GC11295@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ted Ts'o , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Linus Torvalds , rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Keith Packard , Ralf Baechle , David Woodhouse , Stephen Hemminger , "John W. Linville" , Greg Kroah-Hartman References: <1333757482-16204-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@frijolero.org> <20120407024941.GB11295@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on test.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 08:01:36PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > I also really don't see how this helps License compliance folks.  If > > the BSD folks trying to figure out whether or not they can use some > > piece of code, "GPL-Compatible" is no more useful than as "Dual > > BSD/GPL".  In fact, Dual BSD/GPL might actually be more useful since > > at least to me it says it can be used under the BSD or GPL license, > > which is precisely what the BSD folks need. > > If we are OK with this thread serving as documentation for this then > so be it, but I still prefer for this to be clarified more. *I* am > comfortable with this but I know other vendors who did try to achieve > the same sharing had quite a bit of time trying to validate the > approach. I would rather think the obvious clarification would be reading the d*mn copyright headers. That's going to have much more weight in a legal dispute in any case. If the answer is that the Linux Foundation needs to have a bit more basic training about what a Dual License means in its license compliance services, maybe that's the right thing --- although if a lawyer doesn't understand how dual licenses work, I'd suggest that the company find a better lawyer.... > I rather speed help clarify this is a reasonable approach > and also avoid flamewars like the ones we faced when developers eons > ago though that we *had* to GPL the OpenBSD ar5k HAL when we ported it > to Linux for use in ath5k. So this is a different issue. I assume you are referring to the fact that include/linux/license.h's license_is_gpl_compatible() doesn't have a pure BSD option? If that's the issue, then lobby for adding the line: + || strcmp(license, "BSD") == 0 If you are really worried about people being upset that currently, you have to explicitly add a GPL license to BSD-licensed driver code before it gets imported into the kernel, and you are trying to sidestep the issue by adding a "GPL-Compatible" license (on the grounds that a BSD-only license qualifies as GPl-Compatible), let's have that debate openly, instead of trying to side-step it by adding "GPL-compatible" to include/linux/license.h and allowing BSD-only modules to use GPL-only symbols via a back door. Regards, - Ted