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;
Date:   Wed, 30 Jan 2019 20:48:48 +0000
From:   Alan Cox <alan@llwyncelyn.cymru>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] module: Cure the MODULE_LICENSE "GPL" vs. "GPL v2"
 bogosity
Message-ID: <20190130204848.19fc6912@alans-desktop>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901291510060.1513@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901282105450.1669@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
        <20190129130658.GA19205@linux-8ccs>
        <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901291510060.1513@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Organization: is over-rated
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> > > +    "GPL and additional rights"   Historical variant of expressing that the
> > > +				  module source is dual licensed under a
> > > +				  GPL v2 variant and MIT license. Please do
> > > +				  not use in new code.

Actually it was a historic fix for the fact that some slimeballs were
going to use a proposed "BSD" tag and just ship binaries only whilst
claiming that they were totally compliant with the BSD licence.

Alan