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!