On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:11:40 +0100 (CET)
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2019, Jessica Yu wrote:
> > +++ Thomas Gleixner [28/01/19 23:38 +0100]:
> > > +"GPL" Module is licensed under GPL version
> > > 2. This
> > > + does not expre
Thomas:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:39 PM Thomas Gleixner 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
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:31:20 +1030
> Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> > Thanks taking on such a thankless task Thomas,
> >
> > Might have been overzealous in assuming a verionless GPL string meant
> > "or later" (I'm happy for that for my own code, FWIW). My memor
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > +"GPL and additional rights" Historical variant of expressing
> > > > that the
> > > > + module source is dual licensed under a
> > > > + GPL v2 variant and MIT license.
> > > > Ple
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:31:20 +1030
Rusty Russell wrote:
> Thanks taking on such a thankless task Thomas,
>
> Might have been overzealous in assuming a verionless GPL string meant
> "or later" (I'm happy for that for my own code, FWIW). My memory is
> fuzzy, but I don't think anyone cared at the
> > > +"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.
Actu
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Thanks taking on such a thankless task Thomas,
>
> Might have been overzealous in assuming a verionless GPL string meant
> "or later" (I'm happy for that for my own code, FWIW). My memory is
> fuzzy, but I don't think anyone cared at the time.
>
> Fra
Thanks taking on such a thankless task Thomas,
Might have been overzealous in assuming a verionless GPL string meant
"or later" (I'm happy for that for my own code, FWIW). My memory is
fuzzy, but I don't think anyone cared at the time.
Frankly, this should be autogenerated rather than "fixed" if
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019, Jessica Yu wrote:
> +++ Thomas Gleixner [28/01/19 23:38 +0100]:
> > +"GPL"Module is licensed under GPL version 2. This
> > + does not express any distinction between
> > + GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or
+++ Thomas Gleixner [28/01/19 23:38 +0100]:
The original MODULE_LICENSE string for kernel modules licensed under the
GPL v2 (only / or later) was simply "GPL", which was - and still is -
completely sufficient for the purpose of module loading and checking
whether the module is free software or pr
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:38:42PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> The original MODULE_LICENSE string for kernel modules licensed under the
> GPL v2 (only / or later) was simply "GPL", which was - and still is -
> completely sufficient for the purpose of module loading and checking
> whether the mo
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 l
The original MODULE_LICENSE string for kernel modules licensed under the
GPL v2 (only / or later) was simply "GPL", which was - and still is -
completely sufficient for the purpose of module loading and checking
whether the module is free software or proprietary.
In January 2003 this was changed w
13 matches
Mail list logo
