On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 21:51 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Aug 9, 2016 7:09 PM, "James Bottomley" < > James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 15:24 +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > > > table development go under copyleft-next, Rusty recently asked > > > > for code to go in prior to the license tag being added denoting > > > > this license as GPL-compatible [3] -- I had noted in the patch > > > > submission which annotated copyleft-next's compatibility to > > > > GPLv2 that copyleft-next is the license of choice for ongoing > > > > kernel development on my end [4]. If this is objectionable I'm > > > > happy to change it to GPLv2 however I'd like a reason provided > > > > as I've gone through all possible channels to ensure this is > > > > kosher, including vetting by 3 attorneys now, 2 at SUSE. > > > > > > You don't need a new tag, you can use "GPL" or "GPL and > > > additional rights". In fact you don't want any other tag because > > > when combined with the kernel it is GPLv2 anyway because the > > > only way the two are fully compatible is for the kernel community > > > to license the derived work under the GPL. > > > > This is the module tag ... it says what licence the module is > > under, not the licence for the module combined with the kernel, > > which is always GPLv2 because the stricter licence rules. > > Then why isn't "BSD" in the license_is_gpl_compatible list? [Sorry about this, the list seems to have stopped sending me copies of stuff I'm on the to: line for; not sure why. Anyway, having fished this copy out of my trash:] It is, here specifically: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ModifiedBSD James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
