Hi Krzysztof, On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:35:11 +0100 Krzysztof Halasa <khc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > BTW you may want to check if the current wording is correct: > > Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have > > been: > > * submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > It's not ok to submit under e.g. GPL v3 only, I'd suggest "under GPL v2 > and optionally other licence(s)" or something like that. Or maybe "under a license compatible with the Linux kernel source". This was pointed out to me once before but I was hoping not to have to disturb the IBM lawyers again. I guess I will run it past them and see what happens. > For example code under BSD-style licence (in addition to GPLv2) is > present in Linux, though I think any additional licence (the "later" as > in "GPL v2 or later", GPL v3, MS EULA etc.) is acceptable as long as it > is really additional, i.e., if one can ignore it and "use" GPLv2 > exclusively. > > IANAL of course. Me neither :-) -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgpL4NdaoXlQS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
