[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d538c07ccb0176fe7c715bf4cb3b48d84b378c52.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2021 09:56:05 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"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, 2021-07-08 at 17:32 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> 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.
You can ask but it's the submitter's choice to license their code
however they desire.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists