[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190130204848.19fc6912@alans-desktop>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 20:48:48 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...yncelyn.cymru>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>, 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
> > > + "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.
Actually it was a historic fix for the fact that some slimeballs were
going to use a proposed "BSD" tag and just ship binaries only whilst
claiming that they were totally compliant with the BSD licence.
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists