On 5/29/19 2:04 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 10:22 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> this is an extension to the linux operating system and is covered by >> the same gnu general public license that covers the linux kernel [...] > I don't think this one is so clear, because, not knowing what was in > this particular licensor's head, it isn't clear what "the same gnu > general public license that covers the linux kernel" means even if one > assumes the Linux kernel is covered specifically by GPLv2 only. I > might be inclined to say GPL-2.0-only as the safest conclusion, but > might be worth further thought. Nod, whatever we decide applies when an unversioned notice mentions the COPYING file, seems like it should apply here. We may decide that's GPL-2.0-only, but it's worth reviewing these together as a set, after we've finished the first pass and identified the weird ones. Allison
