Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 7 Apr 2012 01:28:28 +0100 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] module: Clarify GPL-Compatible is OK |
| |
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.
| |