Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On wo, 2016-06-29 at 21:05 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> I haven't seen any objections or questions, so just a friendly *poke*.
>
> At the end of the day, what matters most is whether a module is GPL v2
> compatible. So why are the specific license idents for the various GPL
> v2 compatible licenses actually needed?

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120407002723.GA14568@xxxxxxxxx
[2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120408181227.5d9430d9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

  Luis