Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 7 Apr 2012 20:03:55 +0100 | From | Alan Cox <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] module: Clarify GPL-Compatible is OK |
| |
> 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.
Firstly you are out of order touching the licensing tags of other vendors code. Absolutely and utterly. So nobody should for example be touching an Intel MODULE_LICENSE() tag without the say so of Intel legal.
Secondly there are specific reasons this was done. For one it protects us from the FSF doing insane things - which is always useful. For the second it avoids ambiguity about licensing and it avoid assorted problems where 'compatible' isn't really good enough.
Consider the case of
Take MIT source Is it GPL compatible ? Yes Add GPL Compatible tag Compile Ship user the binary (under the MIT license), lock the source away
Conside also the case of
Public domain Put into kernel Oh look no patent transfer clause Sue recipient of kernel
There are good legal reasons we did it the way we did. This shouldn't be changed without a proper legal evaluation.
Dual Foo/GPL is not the same as GPL compatible.
NAK
Alan
| |