linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] module: Clarify GPL-Compatible is OK

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20120407002828.GG6589@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Sat, 7 Apr 2012 01:28:28 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...jolero.org>
Cc:	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module: Clarify GPL-Compatible is OK

On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 05:11:22PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

> You do not need to make dual licenses when licenses are compatible
> with each other, and in fact at times this can confuse developers / legal.
> This has been well documented by SFLC through their "Maintaining
> Permissive-Licensed Files in a GPL-Licensed Project: Guidelines for
> Developers" [0] which was inspired by the ambiguity of the MadWifi
> Project's Dual BSD/GPL license tradition. The list of GPL-Compatible
> licenses can be found on the FSF's website [1].

This is obvious crap.  Explain to me, please, what makes your "GPL compatible"
different from "GPLv2"; at least that would be honest ("we have relicensed
a copy of BSD/GPL code to GPL alone - the license allows that and any
modifications done here are declared GPL-only, so you can't pull them into
the BSD-licensed variants")

"GPL compatible" is not a license; it's a set of licenses.  Incidentally,
belonging to that set is irrelevant to legality of including into the kernel,
since GPLv3 a member and it's *NOT* compatible with the kernel license.
since GPLv3 a member and it's *NOT* compatible with the kernel license.
--
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/