linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: clarify driver licensing rules

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]

Date:   Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:48:31 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        h.peter.anvin@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de, corbet@....net,
        linux-spdx@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: clarify driver licensing rules

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 07:56:25AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> Greg has challenged some recent driver submitters on their license
> choices. He was correct to do so, as the choices in these instances
> did not always advance the aims of the submitters.
> 
> But, this left submitters (and the folks who help them pick licenses)
> a bit confused. They have read things like
> Documentation/process/license-rules.rst which says:
> 
> 	individual source files can have a different license
> 	which is required to be compatible with the GPL-2.0
> 
> and Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst:
> 
> 	We don't insist on any kind of exclusive GPL licensing,
> 	and if you wish ... you may well wish to release under
> 	multiple licenses.
> 
> As written, these appear a _bit_ more laissez faire than we've been in
> practice lately. It sounds like we at least expect submitters to make
> a well-reasoned license choice and to explain their rationale. It does
> not appear that we blindly accept anything that is simply
> GPLv2-compatible.
> 
> Drivers appear to be the most acute source of misunderstanding, so fix
> the driver documentation first. Update it to clarify expectations.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
> Cc: linux-spdx@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> 
> --
> 
> Changes from v1:
>  * Remove mention of maintainers enforcing particular license
>    choices.
>  * Change the wording to ensure that folks understand that the
>    trigger that requires an explanation is not multiple
>    licenses per se, but non-GPL licenses.  You could argue that
>    GPLv2-or-later is multiple liceses, for instance.
> ---
> 
>  b/Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst |    9 +++++----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff -puN Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst~clarify-dual-licensing Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst
> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst~clarify-dual-licensing	2020-08-14 07:42:06.300480229 -0700
> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst	2020-08-14 07:53:10.373478573 -0700
> @@ -60,10 +60,11 @@ What Criteria Determine Acceptance
>  
>  Licensing:
>  		The code must be released to us under the
> -		GNU General Public License. We don't insist on any kind
> -		of exclusive GPL licensing, and if you wish the driver
> -		to be useful to other communities such as BSD you may well
> -		wish to release under multiple licenses.
> +		GNU General Public License. If you wish the driver to be
> +		useful to other communities such as BSD you may release
> +		under multiple licenses. If you choose to release under
> +		licenses other than the GPL, you should include your
> +		rationale for your license choices in your cover letter.
>  		See accepted licenses at include/linux/module.h
>  
>  Copyright:
> _

Looks good, thanks for the modifications:

Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>