Re: writable limits to -next

[Stephen Rothwell]

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: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature