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;
Message-ID: <9d085583a1d9a1068838f4333a2f12156f77d246.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] module: Cure the MODULE_LICENSE "GPL" vs. "GPL v2"
 bogosity
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>,
        Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Jan 2019 17:32:42 -0800
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901282105450.1669@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901282105450.1669@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.1-1build1 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2019-01-28 at 23:38 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Therefore remove the well meant, but ill defined, distinction between "GPL"
> and "GPL v2" and document that:
> 
>   - "GPL" and "GPL v2" both express that the module is licensed under GPLv2
>     (without a distinction of 'only' and 'or later') and is therefore kernel
>     license compliant.
> 
>   - None of the MODULE_LICENSE strings can be used for expressing or
>     determining the exact license
> 
>   - Their sole purpose is to decide whether the module is free software or
>     not.

Thanks Thomas.

Acked-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>

if you want that.