On Thu, 23 May 2019, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 5:29 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Based on 1 normalized pattern(s): > > > > this program is free software you can redistribute it and or modify > > it under the terms of the gnu general public license as published by > > the free software foundation either version 2 of the license or at > > your option any later version due to this file being licensed under > > the gpl there is controversy over whether this permits you to write > > a module that includes this file without placing your module under > > the gpl please consult a lawyer for advice before doing this > > > > extracted by the scancode license scanner the SPDX license identifier > > > > GPL-2.0-or-later > > > > has been chosen to replace the boilerplate/reference in 2 file(s). > > Why should > > > due to this file being licensed under > > the gpl there is controversy over whether this permits you to write > > a module that includes this file without placing your module under > > the gpl please consult a lawyer for advice before doing this > > be treated as "boilerplate" that should be deleted? It is a > non-boilerplate statement about legal interpretation that goes beyond > the mere license notice. Seems to merit discussion anyway. See my earlier reply. I already flagged this for special attention. Thanks, tglx
