linux-kernel - Re: writable limits to -next

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]

Message-Id: <20091026120457.39f7ab83.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:04:57 +1100
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
Cc:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: writable limits to -next

Hi Krzysztof,

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:35:11 +0100 Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl> wrote:
>
> BTW you may want to check if the current wording is correct:
> 
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> writes:
> 
> > You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have
> > been:
> >      * submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> It's not ok to submit under e.g. GPL v3 only, I'd suggest "under GPL v2
> and optionally other licence(s)" or something like that.

Or maybe "under a license compatible with the Linux kernel source".

This was pointed out to me once before but I was hoping not to have to
disturb the IBM lawyers again.  I guess I will run it past them and see
what happens.

> For example code under BSD-style licence (in addition to GPLv2) is
> present in Linux, though I think any additional licence (the "later" as
> in "GPL v2 or later", GPL v3, MS EULA etc.) is acceptable as long as it
> is really additional, i.e., if one can ignore it and "use" GPLv2
> exclusively.
> 
> IANAL of course.

Me neither :-)

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped