linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Documentation: Add a file explaining the requested Linux kernel license enforcement policy

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

Date:   Sat, 21 Oct 2017 10:03:40 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:     Pavel Nikulin <nikulinpi@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Documentation: Add a file explaining the requested
 Linux kernel license enforcement policy

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 07:25:37PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 18:28:12 +0300
> Pavel Nikulin <nikulinpi@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hold!
> > 
> > Greg, are you trying to put a new addendum to the terms of GPL v2?
> 
> In many parts of the world if you make a promise about not enforcing a
> right to take some action (sometimes even an implied one) you cannot then
> take that action.
> 
> So if you say "I won't sue you just because you've got a tiny GPL
> compliance issue", then in much of the world if you attempt to do so
> you'll find you can't.
> 
> I do think it's poorly drafted because it doesn't contain any "unless you
> sue us" caveat so you won't find my name on it.

But it does have that caveat:
	...with respect to any non-defensive assertion...

I discussed that in my FAQ blog post as well.

thanks,

greg k-h