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.2.21.1901302243040.8200@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 30 Jan 2019 22:47:54 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Alan Cox <alan@...yncelyn.cymru>
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

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Alan Cox wrote:

> > > > +    "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.

Ah, that is valuable information. I spent quite some time NOT to find it :)

Thanks,

	tglx