The requirement that the Contributor provide a patent grant to Modifications (IPL 2(b)), (and also the choice of law statement in section 7.), is a restriction on what recipients may do with the IPL software that is not also in the GPL. The GPL (section 6) does not allow this "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. "What is the real (or perceived) conflict with the IBM public license and the GPL?
Anyway, GPL compatibility isn't enough. In order to be considered sufficiently blessed such that it doesn't taint the kernel, the module must use one of the following license strings:
GPL v2 GPL and additional rights Dual BSD/GPL Dual MPL/GPL
No others are acceptable.
It is not possible to re-license the openafs code, since even if IBM were willing, we don't really have an exhaustive list of all Contributors whose permission we would need. As a result, openafs will never be a non-tainting module.
An earlier discussion of this issue is <https://lists.openafs.org/pipermail/openafs-info/2002-January/thread.html#3105>
p7sobTXY7kerM.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
