Re: [PATCH] module: Clarify GPL-Compatible is OK

["Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 05:52:53PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I think you are implying that I want BSD licensed modules to use
> GPL-only symbols. That is not the case. There are two things to
> consider here and I think its best to separate them -- runtime and
> stand alone file licenses.

No, I wasn't thinking that; this is why I was asking what your motives
were.  I had *assumed* there were BSD'ites which were squicked out by
even having the three letters "GPL" in the file in any shape or form,
and so they wanted to keep a file licensed solely under a BSD-only
(w/o the advertising clause), even if the driver was primarily being
updated and maintained within the Linux kernel sources.

I didn't pick up from your other e-mail that you were just going to
use a MODULE_LICENSE of "GPL" which is just as good assuming the folks
from BSD who wanted to share drivers were OK with it.

						- Ted