[CentOS-devel] RFC: kmods SIG Proposal

Fri May 28 10:47:23 UTC 2021
Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com>

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 6:35 AM Peter Georg
<peter.georg at physik.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
> On 24/05/2021 22.32, Patrick Riehecky wrote:
> > I'm loving the ideas/thoughts/etc here!
> >
> > Perhaps, we could add a Roadmap item for non-GPLv2 stuff?  Personally,
> > there are just a few items that I'd love to have which are not GPLv2.
> > I'd hate to block on sorting this out now, when I suspect there will be
> > some more input/concerns/etc.
> >
> > Pat
> Coming back to this question / licensing issue as it seems to be the
> last open question concerning this SIG proposal and Rich asked me to
> have a final draft ready by June 2nd:
> Currently I see two possible options:
> 1) Add a restriction for out-of-tree kernel modules "to out-of-tree
> kernel modules with a GPL v2 compatible license". Assuming that this is
> the current official policy and it won't change in a foreseeable future.
> 2) Add a more vague statement about out-of-tree kernel modules, i.e.
> something like "restricted to out-of-tree kernel modules with cetrain
> licenses due to legal constraints". This probably means that effectively
> the same restriction to "GPLv2 compatible" applies for now, but no
> modifications are required in case the official policy concerning kernel
> module licenses changes in the future.
> Opinions?

Option 1 is pretty much the only one I would expect that you'll get
endorsement from the Board on. I would expect that it would be
problematic for them to approve something that they know could lead to
that kind of problem, especially given how much license compliance
matters to *this* audience in particular.

真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!