linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible

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: <1467236613.26658.47.camel@tiscali.nl>
Date:	Wed, 29 Jun 2016 23:43:33 +0200
From:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ciaran.farrell@...e.com,
	christopher.denicolo@...e.com, fontana@...rpeleven.org,
	copyleft-next@...ts.fedorahosted.org, gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	alan@...ux.intel.com, tytso@....edu, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible

On wo, 2016-06-29 at 21:05 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> I haven't seen any objections or questions, so just a friendly *poke*.

At the end of the day, what matters most is whether a module is GPL v2
compatible. So why are the specific license idents for the various GPL
v2 compatible licenses actually needed?

include/linux/module.h tells us:
    1.   So modinfo can show license info for users wanting to vet their setup
         is free
    2.   So the community can ignore bug reports including proprietary modules
    3.   So vendors can do likewise based on their own policies

Does that require more than just two license idents ("GPL v2 compatible"
and "Proprietary")?


Paul Bolle