[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87mv4j6hmk.fsf@ebb.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 22:28:19 -0400
From: "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@...onservancy.org>
To: Pavel Nikulin <nikulinpi@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Documentation: Add a file explaining the requested Linux kernel license enforcement policy
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 06:28:12PM +0300, Pavel Nikulin wrote:
> Modification of GPL V2 terms are explicitly disallowed.
Greg KH replied at 03:29 (US/Eastern) on Friday:
>> Again, we are not modifying the license, so all should be fine
I agree with Greg; the Linux Kernel Enforcement Statement does not change
the license of Linux as a whole, and it does not modify the GPLv2.
Pavel Nikulin wrote at 11:28 (US/Eastern) on Thursday:
> Greg, are you trying to put a new addendum to the terms of GPL v2?
...
Pavel Nikulin wrote further at 15:16 (US/Eastern) today:
> If you say that your lawyers have comprehensively researched that,
> I can't say they did a good job. Almost every line sounds close to
> being a contractual agreement.
...
> And even this last phrase does not states explicitly that the nature of
> the document as non-legally binding.
...
> Moreover, you put "additional permissions under our license" wording
> there,
Certainly this issue is complicated.
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2017/oct/20/additional-permissions/ might
help. I decided yesterday to write a blog post digging deep into the weeds
on this, for those interested.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn
Distinguished Technologist of Software Freedom Conservancy
========================================================================
Become a Conservancy Supporter today: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists