On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 8:58 AM Peter Georg <peter.georg at physik.uni-regensburg.de> wrote: > > > > On 21/05/2021 13.01, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 6:36 AM Alex Iribarren <alex.m.lists3 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 5/20/21 8:33 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > >>>>>>> I'm a bit concerned that "non compatible license" is a bit vague. > >>>>>>> Would this exclude DRBD, ZFS on Linux, OpenAFS, or nVidia? The nVidia > >>>>>>> bits seem to be 'yes, it is excluded', I'm less sure on the other two. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Concerning your examples: Afaik the CDDL (ZFS) is considered a free > >>>>>> software license by the FSF. So I assume this should be fine. > >>>>>> The nVidia bits are probably not allowed. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> OpenZFS has not been allowed per Red Hat Legal, so I don't think you > >>>>> can do that. > >>>> > >>>> Well, as I said: I'm not a lawyer :) > >>>> But good to know, thanks! > >>>> > >>>> Does this mean that legally the same restrictions that apply to getting > >>>> a package into RHEL also apply to packages provided by a CentOS SIG? > >>>> > >>> > >>> Yes. > >> > >> Do you know if OpenAFS would also be excluded from this SIG? We > >> currently build the kmods ourselves for each kernel release but we would > >> love to be able to push that upstream. > >> > > > > Unfortunately, yes. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#IBMPL > > According to your link I assume you want to imply that only GPL (v2) > compatible licenses are allowed? > > I also looked up what Fedora considers a "good" license for packaging: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses > > These two lists are quite different. > > > Not trying to imply that you are wrong, just trying to figure out what I > should write in the proposal. > > Can someone maybe contact legal to have an "official" answer what > license requirements we have to adhere to for packaging within a CentOS > SIG? Or is "GPL v2 compatible" the official answer? > > Once we have an answer, it'd be good to add this to the CentOS Wiki. > Currently there is only vague information there about licensing > concerning packaging. Or at least I couldn't find it there. > The Linux kernel is licensed GPLv2, so all kernel modules need to be compatible with that license. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!