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: <20160629230153.GM31219@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Thu, 30 Jun 2016 01:01:53 +0200
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Cc:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ciaran Farrell <ciaran.farrell@...e.com>,
	Christopher De Nicolo <christopher.denicolo@...e.com>,
	Richard Fontana <fontana@...rpeleven.org>,
	Discussion and development of copyleft-next 
	<copyleft-next@...ts.fedorahosted.org>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:45:23AM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On wo, 2016-06-29 at 15:01 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Long ago I reached similar conclusion and question, and therefore
> > proposed a simple GPL-Compatible tag then as a replacement [0]. A few
> > agreed [1], but others had a lot of reasons why we need to be explicit
> > about tags for new licenses. I recommend the full thread reading if
> > you are interested about more details, to me perhaps the best
> > explanation of why we need explicit tags is the points Alan raised
> > over historic incompatibilities and also of course new
> > incompatibilities found [2]. Finding compatibility requires work and
> > due diligence. That work was done here and as such a new tag is added.
> > 
> > [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1333757482-16204-1-git-send-email-mcgrof
> > @frijolero.org
> > [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120407002723.GA14568@kroah.com
> > [2] 
> > 
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120408181227.5d9430d9@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk
> 
> Thanks, I wasn't aware of your previous work here.
> 
> But perhaps it wasn't clear I was talking only about the license ident:
> the machine readable module tag. The tag that allows us to taint a
> kernel when a proprietary module is loaded.
> 
> Most modules already have a comment in their files detailing the license
> of that module. Why should that comment be summarized in the license
> ident?

Because run time license counts, please read the full thread and prior
discussions.

  Luis