On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:45:23AM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > On wo, 2016-06-29 at 15:01 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Long ago I reached similar conclusion and question, and therefore > > proposed a simple GPL-Compatible tag then as a replacement [0]. A few > > agreed [1], but others had a lot of reasons why we need to be explicit > > about tags for new licenses. I recommend the full thread reading if > > you are interested about more details, to me perhaps the best > > explanation of why we need explicit tags is the points Alan raised > > over historic incompatibilities and also of course new > > incompatibilities found [2]. Finding compatibility requires work and > > due diligence. That work was done here and as such a new tag is added. > > > > [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1333757482-16204-1-git-send-email-mcgrof > > @frijolero.org > > [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected] > > [2] > > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected] > > Thanks, I wasn't aware of your previous work here. > > But perhaps it wasn't clear I was talking only about the license ident: > the machine readable module tag. The tag that allows us to taint a > kernel when a proprietary module is loaded. > > Most modules already have a comment in their files detailing the license > of that module. Why should that comment be summarized in the license > ident?
Because run time license counts, please read the full thread and prior discussions. Luis
