linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] LICENSES: add and use copyleft-next-0.3.1

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:   Thu, 8 Jul 2021 17:32:32 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@....org>
Cc:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuah@...nel.org, rafael@...nel.org,
        rgoldwyn@...e.com, kuno@...b.nl, fontana@...rpeleven.org,
        Ciaran.Farrell@...e.com, Christopher.DeNicolo@...e.com, hch@....de,
        corbet@....net, linux@...mhuis.info, ast@...nel.org,
        andriin@...com, daniel@...earbox.net, atenart@...nel.org,
        alobakin@...me, weiwan@...gle.com, ap420073@...il.com,
        tj@...nel.org, jeyu@...nel.org, ngupta@...are.org,
        sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com, minchan@...nel.org,
        axboe@...nel.dk, mbenes@...e.com, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
        keescook@...omium.org, jikos@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-spdx@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, copyleft-next@...ts.fedorahosted.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] LICENSES: add and use copyleft-next-0.3.1

On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 07:59:13AM -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > Any chance you wish to just change the license of these files, given that
> > you are the only one that has tried to use it for kernel code?
> 
> There is a lot of dual-licensed (GPLv2-only|{2,3}-Clause-BSD) code already in
> Linux.  Many corporate copyright holders have well documented strong reasons
> for wanting that.  (Those policy goals and the analysis behind them, I find
> problematic and sometimes outright wrong, but nonetheless it's their right to
> license their copyrights that way, and the license *is* GPLv2-only
> compatible, as is Luis'!).
> 
> I assume that you're not asking those companies to relicense to pure
> GPLv2-only.

On the contrary, I have stated in public many times to companies that
try to add dual-licensed new kernel code that they should only do so if
they provide a really good reason, and pushed back on them numerous
times.  See the mailing list archives for details if you care.

So yes, I am asking them, this is not anything new.

Let's keep it simple please, and not add new licenses for no real good
reason if at all possible.

thanks,

greg k-h