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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901291510060.1513@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:11:40 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>
cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        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 Tue, 29 Jan 2019, Jessica Yu wrote:
> +++ Thomas Gleixner [28/01/19 23:38 +0100]:
> > +    "GPL"			  Module is licensed under GPL version 2. This
> > +				  does not express any distinction between
> > +				  GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later. The exact
> > +				  license information can only be determined
> > +				  via the license information in the
> > +				  corresponding source files.
> > +
> > +    "GPL v2"			  Same as "GPL v2". It exists for historic
> > +				  reasons.
> 
> Did you mean to say 'Same as "GPL"' here? (as in, "GPL v2" conveys the same
> information as the "GPL" module license string)

Of course. After staring at all this for too long I confused myself and did
not spot it even if I read through the whole thing several times.

> > +
> > +    "GPL and additional rights"   Historical variant of expressing that the
> > +				  module source is dual licensed under a
> > +				  GPL v2 variant and MIT license. Please do
> > +				  not use in new code.
> > +
> > +    "Dual MIT/GPL"		  The correct way of expressing that the
> > +				  module is dual licensed under a GPL v2
> > +				  variant or MIT license choice.
> > +
> > +    "Dual BSD/GPL"		  The module is dual licensed under a GPL v2
> > +				  variant or BSD license choice. The exact
> > +				  variant of the BSD license can only be
> > +				  determined via the license information
> > +				  in the corresponding source files.
> > +
> > +    "Dual MPL/GPL"		  The module is dual licensed under a GPL v2
> > +				  variant or Mozilla Public License (MPL)
> > +				  choice. The exact variant of the MPL
> > +				  license can only be determined via the
> > +				  license information in the corresponding
> > +				  source files.
> > +
> > +    "Proprietary"		  The module is under a proprietary license.
> > +				  This string is soleley for proprietary third
> 
> s/soleley/solely/
> 
> Otherwise looks good. Thanks for clearing this all up.

Thanks for having a sharp look!

       tglx