On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 07:46:27PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 03:45:35AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > diff --git a/lib/test_driver_data.c b/lib/test_driver_data.c > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 000000000000..11175a3b9f0a > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/lib/test_driver_data.c > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,1272 @@ > > > > +/* > > > > + * Driver data test interface > > > > + * > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2017 Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> > > > > + * > > > > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > > > > modify it > > > > + * under the terms of copyleft-next (version 0.3.1 or later) as > > > > published > > > > + * at http://copyleft-next.org/. > > > > > > Is this compatible with GPLv2 for kernel modules? > > > > Yes, I went through all possible channels to vet for this, for details refer > > to the thread which explains this [0] where the first attempt was to > > actually add > > the license to the list of compatible licenses. So Linus' preference is to > > use > > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") rather. > > > > [0] > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CA+55aFyhxcvD+q7tp+-yrSFDKfR0mOHgyEAe=f_94aklsou...@mail.gmail.com > > Thank you for this heads-up. > According to Linus' comment, he seems to expect an explicit GPL license > term to be in the beginning of the file, and then if you want, an additional > license to be added, quote "if you want to dual-license it, just put something > like "or, at your option, copyleft-next" in the comment at the top."
I think the or clause thing deserves some clarification so brought this up on the old thread and Cc'd you. Luis
