* [PATCH] docs: mention MIT license as a compatible license with GPLv2 @ 2025-07-24 10:03 Aditya Garg 2025-07-24 10:38 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Aditya Garg @ 2025-07-24 10:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Corbet; +Cc: workflows, linux-doc, linux-kernel MIT is a widely used permissive free software license that is compatible with the GPLv2 license. This change adds it to the list of compatible licenses with GPLv2 in the kernel documentation. Signed-off-by: Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@live.com> --- Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst b/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst index 25ca49f7a..c3465e3aa 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst @@ -235,9 +235,9 @@ code must be compatible with version 2 of the GNU General Public License (GPLv2), which is the license covering the kernel distribution as a whole. In practice, that means that all code contributions are covered either by GPLv2 (with, optionally, language allowing distribution under later -versions of the GPL) or the three-clause BSD license. Any contributions -which are not covered by a compatible license will not be accepted into the -kernel. +versions of the GPL), the three-clause BSD license or the MIT license. +Any contributions which are not covered by a compatible license will not +be accepted into the kernel. Copyright assignments are not required (or requested) for code contributed to the kernel. All code merged into the mainline kernel retains its -- 2.50.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] docs: mention MIT license as a compatible license with GPLv2 2025-07-24 10:03 [PATCH] docs: mention MIT license as a compatible license with GPLv2 Aditya Garg @ 2025-07-24 10:38 ` Greg KH 2025-07-24 10:41 ` Aditya Garg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2025-07-24 10:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Aditya Garg; +Cc: Jonathan Corbet, workflows, linux-doc, linux-kernel On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 10:03:41AM +0000, Aditya Garg wrote: > MIT is a widely used permissive free software license that is compatible > with the GPLv2 license. This change adds it to the list of compatible > licenses with GPLv2 in the kernel documentation. No, please don't. This isn't a proper place for talking about the different license interactions. > > Signed-off-by: Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@live.com> > --- > Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst b/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst > index 25ca49f7a..c3465e3aa 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst > @@ -235,9 +235,9 @@ code must be compatible with version 2 of the GNU General Public License > (GPLv2), which is the license covering the kernel distribution as a whole. > In practice, that means that all code contributions are covered either by > GPLv2 (with, optionally, language allowing distribution under later > -versions of the GPL) or the three-clause BSD license. Any contributions > -which are not covered by a compatible license will not be accepted into the > -kernel. > +versions of the GPL), the three-clause BSD license or the MIT license. You forgot a ',' anyway :( thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] docs: mention MIT license as a compatible license with GPLv2 2025-07-24 10:38 ` Greg KH @ 2025-07-24 10:41 ` Aditya Garg 2025-07-24 11:47 ` Greg KH 2025-07-24 17:29 ` Randy Dunlap 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Aditya Garg @ 2025-07-24 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: Jonathan Corbet, workflows, linux-doc, linux-kernel On 24/07/25 4:08 pm, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 10:03:41AM +0000, Aditya Garg wrote: >> MIT is a widely used permissive free software license that is compatible >> with the GPLv2 license. This change adds it to the list of compatible >> licenses with GPLv2 in the kernel documentation. > > No, please don't. This isn't a proper place for talking about the > different license interactions. Ohk > >> >> Signed-off-by: Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@live.com> >> --- >> Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst | 6 +++--- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst b/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst >> index 25ca49f7a..c3465e3aa 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst >> @@ -235,9 +235,9 @@ code must be compatible with version 2 of the GNU General Public License >> (GPLv2), which is the license covering the kernel distribution as a whole. >> In practice, that means that all code contributions are covered either by >> GPLv2 (with, optionally, language allowing distribution under later >> -versions of the GPL) or the three-clause BSD license. Any contributions >> -which are not covered by a compatible license will not be accepted into the >> -kernel. >> +versions of the GPL), the three-clause BSD license or the MIT license. > > You forgot a ',' anyway :( While it is no longer relevant, I wonder where you wanted the comma. Maybe you meant "the three-clause BSD license, or the MIT license"? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] docs: mention MIT license as a compatible license with GPLv2 2025-07-24 10:41 ` Aditya Garg @ 2025-07-24 11:47 ` Greg KH 2025-07-24 17:29 ` Randy Dunlap 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2025-07-24 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Aditya Garg; +Cc: Jonathan Corbet, workflows, linux-doc, linux-kernel On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 04:11:57PM +0530, Aditya Garg wrote: > >> +versions of the GPL), the three-clause BSD license or the MIT license. > > > > You forgot a ',' anyway :( > > While it is no longer relevant, I wonder where you wanted the comma. Maybe you meant "the three-clause BSD license, or the MIT license"? Yup! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] docs: mention MIT license as a compatible license with GPLv2 2025-07-24 10:41 ` Aditya Garg 2025-07-24 11:47 ` Greg KH @ 2025-07-24 17:29 ` Randy Dunlap 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Randy Dunlap @ 2025-07-24 17:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Aditya Garg, Greg KH; +Cc: Jonathan Corbet, workflows, linux-doc, linux-kernel On 7/24/25 3:41 AM, Aditya Garg wrote: > > > On 24/07/25 4:08 pm, Greg KH wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 10:03:41AM +0000, Aditya Garg wrote: >>> MIT is a widely used permissive free software license that is compatible >>> with the GPLv2 license. This change adds it to the list of compatible >>> licenses with GPLv2 in the kernel documentation. >> >> No, please don't. This isn't a proper place for talking about the >> different license interactions. > > Ohk > >> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@live.com> >>> --- >>> Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst | 6 +++--- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst b/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst >>> index 25ca49f7a..c3465e3aa 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst >>> +++ b/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst >>> @@ -235,9 +235,9 @@ code must be compatible with version 2 of the GNU General Public License >>> (GPLv2), which is the license covering the kernel distribution as a whole. >>> In practice, that means that all code contributions are covered either by >>> GPLv2 (with, optionally, language allowing distribution under later >>> -versions of the GPL) or the three-clause BSD license. Any contributions >>> -which are not covered by a compatible license will not be accepted into the >>> -kernel. >>> +versions of the GPL), the three-clause BSD license or the MIT license. >> >> You forgot a ',' anyway :( > > While it is no longer relevant, I wonder where you wanted the comma. Maybe you meant "the three-clause BSD license, or the MIT license"? In general we accept the use of the series/serial/Oxford comma (", or") or not using it, but I suppose that $maintainers can determine otherwise. from Documentation/doc-guide/contributing.rst: - The question of whether a period should be followed by one or two spaces is not to be debated in the context of kernel documentation. Other areas of rational disagreement, such as the "Oxford comma", are also off-topic here. -- ~Randy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-07-24 17:29 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2025-07-24 10:03 [PATCH] docs: mention MIT license as a compatible license with GPLv2 Aditya Garg 2025-07-24 10:38 ` Greg KH 2025-07-24 10:41 ` Aditya Garg 2025-07-24 11:47 ` Greg KH 2025-07-24 17:29 ` Randy Dunlap
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox