linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] Convert filter.txt to RST

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: <80bdc251-9f57-602f-6536-b34651684bb7@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Thu, 9 Aug 2018 10:24:54 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] Convert filter.txt to RST

On 08/09/2018 09:27 AM, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 11:07:35PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 03:23:24PM +1000, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
>>>
>>> Daniel and Alexei, can I please have permission to add GPLv2+ to the BPF
>>> docs?
>>
>> kernel licensing is GPLv2 without +
> 
> According to process/license-rules.rst
> 
> 	    GPL-2.0+  :  GNU General Public License v2.0 or later

Not really, please see the first three paragraphs of process/license-rules.rst.
The COPYING file of the kernel says that it's 'v2' and not 'v2 or later',
unless otherwise _explicitly_ noted. Given that and given there is no other
specific note in filter.txt, it would mean it's v2-only due to that rule.

>> every file (including docs) can potentially have a different
>> compatible license, but since they were developed
>> implicitly under v2 only you would need to get a buy-in from
>> all contributors before making such change.
> 
> So if a file does not _explicitly_ state that it is under another
> licence it is ok to add GPLv2?
> 
> 
> thanks,
> Tobin.
>