Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 8 Apr 2012 16:23:10 -0400 | From | Ted Ts'o <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] module: Clarify GPL-Compatible is OK |
| |
On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 05:52:53PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > If you are really worried about people being upset that currently, you > > have to explicitly add a GPL license to BSD-licensed driver code > > before it gets imported into the kernel, and you are trying to > > sidestep the issue by adding a "GPL-Compatible" license (on the > > grounds that a BSD-only license qualifies as GPl-Compatible), let's > > have that debate openly, instead of trying to side-step it by adding > > "GPL-compatible" to include/linux/license.h and allowing BSD-only > > modules to use GPL-only symbols via a back door. > > I think you are implying that I want BSD licensed modules to use > GPL-only symbols. That is not the case. There are two things to > consider here and I think its best to separate them -- runtime and > stand alone file licenses.
No, I wasn't thinking that; this is why I was asking what your motives were. I had *assumed* there were BSD'ites which were squicked out by even having the three letters "GPL" in the file in any shape or form, and so they wanted to keep a file licensed solely under a BSD-only (w/o the advertising clause), even if the driver was primarily being updated and maintained within the Linux kernel sources.
I didn't pick up from your other e-mail that you were just going to use a MODULE_LICENSE of "GPL" which is just as good assuming the folks from BSD who wanted to share drivers were OK with it.
- Ted
| |