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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901282105450.1669@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901282105450.1669@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
From:   Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
Date:   Thu, 31 Jan 2019 16:18:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOFm3uHGnxPHW6X7_q6DORBGp677mXz2aSuz8RMSDq0qS-2zBg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] module: Cure the MODULE_LICENSE "GPL" vs. "GPL v2" bogosity
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Thomas:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:39 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
[...]
> As an unintended side effect this distinction causes a major headache for
> license compliance, license scanners and the ongoing effort to clean up the
> license mess of the kernel.

Glad to be of service and sorry for having helped a bit surface these!

>
> 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.
>
> Add a MODULE_LICENSE subsection to the license rule documentation as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>


Thank you ++ for documenting all this : this is a small change but a big
step towards licensing clarity! Great that you found the commit that
introduced this too.

Feel free to add this if you want:
Acked-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>

--
Cordially

Philippe Ombredanne