On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:45:23AM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
On wo, 2016-06-29 at 15:01 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Long ago I reached similar conclusion and question, and therefore
> proposed a simple GPL-Compatible tag then as a replacement [0]. A few
> agreed [1], but others had a lot of reasons why we need to be explicit
> about tags for new licenses. I recommend the full thread reading if
> you are interested about more details, to me perhaps the best
> explanation of why we need explicit tags is the points Alan raised
> over historic incompatibilities and also of course new
> incompatibilities found [2]. Finding compatibility requires work and
> due diligence. That work was done here and as such a new tag is added.
>
> [0]
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1333757482-16204-1-git-send-email-mcgrof
> @frijolero.org
> [1]
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120407002723.GA14568@kroah.com
> [2]
>
>
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120408181227.5d9430d9@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk
Thanks, I wasn't aware of your previous work here.
But perhaps it wasn't clear I was talking only about the license ident:
the machine readable module tag. The tag that allows us to taint a
kernel when a proprietary module is loaded.
Most modules already have a comment in their files detailing the license
of that module. Why should that comment be summarized in the license
ident?
Because run time license counts, please read the full thread and prior
discussions.
Luis