linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] docs: mention MIT license as a compatible license with GPLv2

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:
 <PN3PR01MB95978770C2DC8D5CDB28426FB85EA@PN3PR01MB9597.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 16:11:57 +0530
From: Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@...e.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: mention MIT license as a compatible license with
 GPLv2



On 24/07/25 4:08 pm, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 10:03:41AM +0000, Aditya Garg wrote:
>> MIT is a widely used permissive free software license that is compatible
>> with the GPLv2 license. This change adds it to the list of compatible
>> licenses with GPLv2 in the kernel documentation.
> 
> No, please don't.  This isn't a proper place for talking about the
> different license interactions.

Ohk

> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@...e.com>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst | 6 +++---
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst b/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst
>> index 25ca49f7a..c3465e3aa 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst
>> @@ -235,9 +235,9 @@ code must be compatible with version 2 of the GNU General Public License
>>  (GPLv2), which is the license covering the kernel distribution as a whole.
>>  In practice, that means that all code contributions are covered either by
>>  GPLv2 (with, optionally, language allowing distribution under later
>> -versions of the GPL) or the three-clause BSD license.  Any contributions
>> -which are not covered by a compatible license will not be accepted into the
>> -kernel.
>> +versions of the GPL), the three-clause BSD license or the MIT license.
> 
> You forgot a ',' anyway :(

While it is no longer relevant, I wonder where you wanted the comma. Maybe you meant "the three-clause BSD license, or the MIT license"?