linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RFC] module: Cure the MODULE

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: <9d085583a1d9a1068838f4333a2f12156f77d246.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Jan 2019 17:32:42 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] module: Cure the MODULE_LICENSE "GPL" vs. "GPL v2"
 bogosity

On Mon, 2019-01-28 at 23:38 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Therefore remove the well meant, but ill defined, distinction between "GPL"
> and "GPL v2" and document that:
> 
>   - "GPL" and "GPL v2" both express that the module is licensed under GPLv2
>     (without a distinction of 'only' and 'or later') and is therefore kernel
>     license compliant.
> 
>   - None of the MODULE_LICENSE strings can be used for expressing or
>     determining the exact license
> 
>   - Their sole purpose is to decide whether the module is free software or
>     not.

Thanks Thomas.

Acked-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>

if you want that.