Re: [PATCH] module: Clarify GPL-Compatible is OK

[Al Viro]

On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 05:11:22PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

> You do not need to make dual licenses when licenses are compatible
> with each other, and in fact at times this can confuse developers / legal.
> This has been well documented by SFLC through their "Maintaining
> Permissive-Licensed Files in a GPL-Licensed Project: Guidelines for
> Developers" [0] which was inspired by the ambiguity of the MadWifi
> Project's Dual BSD/GPL license tradition. The list of GPL-Compatible
> licenses can be found on the FSF's website [1].

This is obvious crap.  Explain to me, please, what makes your "GPL compatible"
different from "GPLv2"; at least that would be honest ("we have relicensed
a copy of BSD/GPL code to GPL alone - the license allows that and any
modifications done here are declared GPL-only, so you can't pull them into
the BSD-licensed variants")

"GPL compatible" is not a license; it's a set of licenses.  Incidentally,
belonging to that set is irrelevant to legality of including into the kernel,
since GPLv3 a member and it's *NOT* compatible with the kernel license.
since GPLv3 a member and it's *NOT* compatible with the kernel license.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/