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: <CAOFm3uHGnxPHW6X7_q6DORBGp677mXz2aSuz8RMSDq0qS-2zBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 31 Jan 2019 16:18:13 +0100
From:   Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
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>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] module: Cure the MODULE_LICENSE "GPL" vs. "GPL v2" bogosity

Thomas:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:39 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
[...]
> As an unintended side effect this distinction causes a major headache for
> license compliance, license scanners and the ongoing effort to clean up the
> license mess of the kernel.

Glad to be of service and sorry for having helped a bit surface these!

>
> 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.
>
> Add a MODULE_LICENSE subsection to the license rule documentation as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>


Thank you ++ for documenting all this : this is a small change but a big
step towards licensing clarity! Great that you found the commit that
introduced this too.

Feel free to add this if you want:
Acked-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>

--
Cordially

Philippe Ombredanne