[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901301916330.4548@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:21:09 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
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>,
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, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Thanks taking on such a thankless task Thomas,
>
> Might have been overzealous in assuming a verionless GPL string meant
> "or later" (I'm happy for that for my own code, FWIW). My memory is
> fuzzy, but I don't think anyone cared at the time.
>
> Frankly, this should be autogenerated rather than "fixed" if we want
> this done properly.
Yes, but for that we need to have the SPDX-Identifiers in place and the
whole licensing mess of the kernel cleaned up. We're working on that, but
that's a herculanean task.
Btw, this was the third thing on that day which made me curse a certain
Rusty dude. Guess what the other presents were which that guy
left.... hotplug and futexes.
Somehow that all that stuff sticks to me now and because that dude left
into buzzword land I can't make him fix it anymore :)
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists