Re: [PATCH] docs: mention MIT license as a compatible license with GPLv2

[Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@live.com>]

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"?