On March 7, 2015 2:12:20 PM PST, Paul Bolle <pebo...@tiscali.nl> wrote: >On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 14:02 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> On March 7, 2015 1:54:41 PM PST, Paul Bolle <pebo...@tiscali.nl> >wrote: >> >By that logic we might as well simplify the logic of >> >license_is_gpl_compatible() and MODULE_LICENSE() quite a bit. Why >check >> >for six variants instead of just one and be done with it? >> >> Because nobody wants to go through hundreds of drivers and change >them? > >Not fun, but surely doable. > >> >Anyhow, "GPL" and "GPL v2" are both allowed but not identical. So, >> >unless a patch is applied to treat them interchangeably, somehow, in >> >the module license checking code, >> >> They are treated interchangeably as far as I can see. Where do you >see >> "GPL" is being treated differently than "GPL v2". > >I'm not going to explain here why "GPL v2" or "GPL v2 or later" differ.
I was talking about them being treated differently from technological standpoint (i.e. the code), not from legal one. > >"GPL" is documented to mean "GPL v2 or later". "GPL v2" is documented >to >mean just that (see include/linux/module.h). Again, you're free to >submit a patch to somehow simplify that. But unless a patch like that >is >applied, we should make sure MODULE_LICENSE() matches the actual >license >of the module involved. If you want to fix up input drivers I'll take such patch, but I am sure more such cases will sneak in unless you also make sure that there are tools (such as checkpatch.pl) that can alert developers to the inconsistency. Thanks. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
