linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] power: reset: qnap-poweroff: Fix License String

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:11:29 +0100
From:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:	Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>
Cc:	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] power: reset: qnap-poweroff: Fix License String

Hello Anton,

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:47:29PM -0800, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 09:13:36PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 07:15:26PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > GPLv2+ is not a valid license string. Replace it with one that is.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/power/reset/qnap-poweroff.c |    2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/power/reset/qnap-poweroff.c b/drivers/power/reset/qnap-poweroff.c
> > > index ca0b476..8af772b 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/power/reset/qnap-poweroff.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/power/reset/qnap-poweroff.c
> > > @@ -121,4 +121,4 @@ module_platform_driver(qnap_power_off_driver);
> > >  
> > >  MODULE_AUTHOR("Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>");
> > >  MODULE_DESCRIPTION("QNAP Power off driver");
> > > -MODULE_LICENSE("GPLv2+");
> > > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> > This change is wrong.
> > 
> > According to include/linux/module.h "GPL v2" means exactly that: version
> > 2. As the file specifies v2 or later in the header you have to use "GPL"
> > which means v2 or later.
> 
> Does it even make sense to have the two separate things ("GPL v2" and
> "GPL")?
Yeah. If you had another OS project that uses GPL-4 you can just copy
over a GPL-2+ driver to it, not an GPL-2 driver. So assuming the kernel
will stay at GPL-2 forever it doesn't make any difference for the
kernel. But other projects might benefit. (And if in the future someone
might want to change the kernel to GPL-4, she only needs to contact the
GPL-2 authors and can legally change GPL-2+ to GPL-4+.)

> Suppose there is a global change that modifies a bunch of drivers, some of
> them are GPLv2+. Now, the author of the global change is submitting it
> under "GPL v2 only" license, which, by definition, turns any GPLv2+ code
> into "GPL v2 only", right?
See http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/dual_license_bsd_gpl.html for Linus'
POV. It's an old mail, but I think it still applies.

> So, changing from GPLv2+ to "GPL v2 only" is OK, but not the other way
> around.
OK as in (probably) legal. OK as in fair is questionable.

> IANAL, tho.
ditto.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/