From: "Arend van Spriel" <arend@broadcom.com>
To: "Alan Cox" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@frijolero.org>,
"rusty@rustcorp.com.au" <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Keith Packard" <keithp@keithp.com>,
"Ralf Baechle" <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
"David Woodhouse" <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
"Stephen Hemminger" <shemminger@vyatta.com>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module: Clarify GPL-Compatible is OK
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 14:49:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F818952.3010609@broadcom.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120407200355.6be37c34@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk>
On 04/07/2012 09:03 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> You do not need to make dual licenses when licenses are compatible
>> with each other, and in fact at times this can confuse developers / legal.
>
> Firstly you are out of order touching the licensing tags of other vendors
> code. Absolutely and utterly. So nobody should for example be touching an
> Intel MODULE_LICENSE() tag without the say so of Intel legal.
As the patch also includes driver code that Broadcom contributed to the
kernel, I am inclined to agree. But to me it is not clear whether the
MODULE_LICENSE() tag holds a true legal value. How does it relate to the
legal disclaimer that is (probably) in each and every source file?
Gr. AvS
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-08 12:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-07 0:11 [PATCH] module: Clarify GPL-Compatible is OK Luis R. Rodriguez
2012-04-07 0:27 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-04-07 0:28 ` Al Viro
2012-04-07 0:57 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2012-04-07 0:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-07 0:51 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2012-04-07 1:02 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2012-04-08 12:42 ` Arend van Spriel
2012-04-07 2:49 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-04-07 3:01 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2012-04-07 21:15 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-04-08 0:52 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2012-04-08 14:57 ` Alan Cox
2012-04-08 16:06 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2012-04-08 17:12 ` Alan Cox
2012-04-08 20:23 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-04-07 19:03 ` Alan Cox
2012-04-08 12:49 ` Arend van Spriel [this message]
2012-04-08 22:50 ` Dan Williams
2012-05-07 2:39 ` Rusty Russell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F818952.3010609@broadcom.com \
--to=arend@broadcom.com \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=keithp@keithp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=mcgrof@frijolero.org \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=shemminger@vyatta.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox