Hello, On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 12:14:16PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On 11/14/24 11:49, Werner Sembach wrote: > > Am 14.11.24 um 11:31 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König: > > > the kernel modules provided by Tuxedo on > > > https://gitlab.com/tuxedocomputers/development/packages/tuxedo-drivers > > > are licensed under GPLv3 or later. This is incompatible with the > > > kernel's license and so makes it impossible for distributions and other > > > third parties to support these at least in pre-compiled form and so > > > limits user experience and the possibilities to work on mainlining these > > > drivers. > > > > > > This incompatibility is created on purpose to control the upstream > > > process. See https://fosstodon.org/@kernellogger/113423314337991594 for > > > a nice summary of the situation and some further links about the issue. > > > > > > Note that the pull request that fixed the MODULE_LICENSE invocations to > > > stop claiming GPL(v2) compatibility was accepted and then immediately > > > reverted "for the time being until the legal stuff is sorted out" > > > (https://gitlab.com/tuxedocomputers/development/packages/tuxedo- > > > drivers/-/commit/a8c09b6c2ce6393fe39d8652d133af9f06cfb427). > > > > As already being implied by that commit message, this is sadly not an > > issue that can be sorted out over night. > > > > We ended up in this situation as MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") on its own does > > not hint at GPL v2, if one is not aware of the license definition table > > in the documentation. > > That statement isn't consistent with you saying to pick GPLv3 as an > explicitly incompatible license to control the mainlining process. So you > knew that it's legally at least questionable to combine these licenses. When I wrote this mail I missed the possibility that while Werner knew GPLv3 isn't ok for in-kernel code might still have considered GPLv3 ok for external modules anyhow. So I take back what I said and excuse me for my words. They were not intended as harsh as Werner obviously took them, but still I regret having written my reply with this suggestion. I'm sorry, Uwe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
