[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87k2ynxd23.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:11:08 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>,
Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Sébastien Szymanski
<sebastien.szymanski@...adeus.com>, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: MODULE_LICENSE(): "GPL" vs. "GPL v2" (Was: [PATCH 1/2] Input: add support for Semtech SX8654 I2C touchscreen controller)
Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl> writes:
> [Added Rusty and Dave.]
>
> On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 20:51 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 11:38:55PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
>> > From a technological standpoint it would be easy to declare "GPL" (or
>> > any other string) to mean "GPL v2 compatible", which is, I think, all
>> > that matters. But license_is_gpl_compatible() doesn't do that. And I
>> > fear that's for a reason. Is my fear unfounded?
>>
>> Well we might ask Rusty on the off chance that he remembers but my guess
>> would be that he added "GPL v2" in addition to "GPL" and other license
>> stings because at the time there was one driver,
>> drivers/net/tulip/xircom_tulip_cb.c, that used MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2").
Yes, people screw this up. But that's mainly because they don't care
either :)
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists