On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 09:51:27PM +0000, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote: > The situation still is far from ideal. The module should get the > kernel marked as tainted. It would be nice if the largest > contributor of code to OpenAFS (some company called "IBM/Red Hat") > could work towards relicensing under the GPLv2. But the poor > selection of license applied to OpenAFS shouldn't force exclusion. The only thing that IBM could re-license would be the code they published in 2000, which was forked to make OpenAFS 1.0. From what I've been told, less than 30% of the source code in the OpenAFS kernel module is attributable to IBM contributions. The in-kernel kAFS module is entirely covered by the kernel license, and was developed outside of the OpenAFS/IBM AFS development, so there should be no licensing limits for it that aren't also on any other in-kernel modules that are being built outside of the RHEL/CentOS kernel. -- Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org>