On Aug 9, 2016 7:09 PM, "James Bottomley" <
James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:

On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 15:24 +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:

quoted

quoted

table development go under copyleft-next, Rusty recently asked for
code to go in prior to the license tag being added denoting this
license as GPL-compatible [3] -- I had noted in the patch
submission which annotated copyleft-next's compatibility to GPLv2
that copyleft-next is the license of choice for ongoing kernel
development on my end [4]. If this is objectionable I'm happy to
change it to GPLv2 however I'd like a reason provided as I've gone
through all possible channels to ensure this is kosher, including
vetting by 3 attorneys now, 2 at SUSE.

You don't need a new tag, you can use "GPL" or "GPL and additional
rights". In fact you don't want any other tag because when combined
 with the kernel it is GPLv2 anyway because the only way the two are
fully compatible is for the kernel community to license the derived
work under the GPL.

This is the module tag ... it says what licence the module is under,
not the licence for the module combined with the kernel, which is
always GPLv2 because the stricter licence rules.

Then why isn't "BSD" in the license_is_gpl_compatible list?