Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] Convert filter.txt to RST
To:     "Tobin C. Harding" <me@tobin.cc>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20180809052328.27942-1-me@tobin.cc>
 <20180809060734.rtqqu4sexbwzuqmm@ast-mbp> <20180809072753.GF32374@eros>
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Message-ID: <80bdc251-9f57-602f-6536-b34651684bb7@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Thu, 9 Aug 2018 10:24:54 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180809072753.GF32374@eros>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 08/09/2018 09:27 AM, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 11:07:35PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 03:23:24PM +1000, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
>>>
>>> Daniel and Alexei, can I please have permission to add GPLv2+ to the BPF
>>> docs?
>>
>> kernel licensing is GPLv2 without +
> 
> According to process/license-rules.rst
> 
> 	    GPL-2.0+  :  GNU General Public License v2.0 or later

Not really, please see the first three paragraphs of process/license-rules.rst.
The COPYING file of the kernel says that it's 'v2' and not 'v2 or later',
unless otherwise _explicitly_ noted. Given that and given there is no other
specific note in filter.txt, it would mean it's v2-only due to that rule.

>> every file (including docs) can potentially have a different
>> compatible license, but since they were developed
>> implicitly under v2 only you would need to get a buy-in from
>> all contributors before making such change.
> 
> So if a file does not _explicitly_ state that it is under another
> licence it is ok to add GPLv2?
> 
> 
> thanks,
> Tobin.
>