On Tue, 29 Jan 2019, Jessica Yu wrote:
> +++ Thomas Gleixner [28/01/19 23:38 +0100]:
> > + "GPL" Module is licensed under GPL version 2. This
> > + does not express any distinction between
> > + GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later. The exact
> > + license information can only be determined
> > + via the license information in the
> > + corresponding source files.
> > +
> > + "GPL v2" Same as "GPL v2". It exists for
> > historic
> > + reasons.
>
> Did you mean to say 'Same as "GPL"' here? (as in, "GPL v2" conveys the same
> information as the "GPL" module license string)
Of course. After staring at all this for too long I confused myself and did
not spot it even if I read through the whole thing several times.
> > +
> > + "GPL and additional rights" Historical variant of expressing that the
> > + module source is dual licensed under a
> > + GPL v2 variant and MIT license. Please do
> > + not use in new code.
> > +
> > + "Dual MIT/GPL" The correct way of expressing that the
> > + module is dual licensed under a GPL v2
> > + variant or MIT license choice.
> > +
> > + "Dual BSD/GPL" The module is dual licensed under a GPL v2
> > + variant or BSD license choice. The exact
> > + variant of the BSD license can only be
> > + determined via the license information
> > + in the corresponding source files.
> > +
> > + "Dual MPL/GPL" The module is dual licensed under a GPL v2
> > + variant or Mozilla Public License (MPL)
> > + choice. The exact variant of the MPL
> > + license can only be determined via the
> > + license information in the corresponding
> > + source files.
> > +
> > + "Proprietary" The module is under a proprietary license.
> > + This string is soleley for proprietary third
>
> s/soleley/solely/
>
> Otherwise looks good. Thanks for clearing this all up.
Thanks for having a sharp look!
tglx
