On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 3:03 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 02:22:14AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:12 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

It would seem I did follow up with a v3 patch and Rusty noted that although
I may be right, its hard to care [0]. But of relevance here is again if one
of the MODULE_LICENSE() dual tags should be used or the GPL tag. I'll
continue to side recommending with the MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") tag even on
files with permissive licenses, and even if it we haven't clarified this in
documentation as I think scaling these tags further is just silly.

[0] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/87bom0hf0f.fsf@rustcorp.com.au

https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-bcache/msg06048.html

https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-bcache/msg06058.html

For those that are not developers:

The proposed changes referenced in the above URLs take old portions PostgreSQL
C code which were previously on a larger C file and move them to a new module
which has the PostgreSQL header. Modules need to have a MODULE_LICENSE() tag,
and if one is not used the kernel assumes the module is proprietary. The above
code lacks a MODULE_LICENSE() tag as such currently the driver is proprietary.

Thanks for explaining this for audience.

Clearly that needs to be fixed before upstreaming.

Yes, that's why Coly deferred the change for getting clear with licenses.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko