Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 22:07:32 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address
Message-ID: <20131006200732.GD18082@pd.tnic>
References: <20131005184307.GA6429@leaf>
 <1380999108.2081.138.camel@joe-AO722>
 <20131006062739.GA5218@kroah.com>
 <1381042912.2081.146.camel@joe-AO722>
 <20131006070557.GA1679@kroah.com>
 <20131006081033.GA18109@pd.tnic>
 <20131006134404.GB4706@kroah.com>
 <20131006135507.GA18082@pd.tnic>
 <20131006191804.GB27140@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131006191804.GB27140@kroah.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1056
Lines: 32

On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 12:18:04PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> You can do that, but I know a whole lot of lawyers who will not like
> that, as you aren't being explicit about what the license of the file
> is, and relying on something else.

I was afraid that some legal-profession-mumbo-jumbo would require the
explicit stating of the license in *every* goddam file. Oh well...

> Remember, Linux kernel source files are licensed with all sorts of
> different licenses, all of which are compatable and default to GPL
> when used as a whole, but can be different on their own.

Right.

> Lawyers, just like kernel developers, are never happy, it's not in
> their nature...

Why am I not surprised?! :-)

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/