From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757314Ab2EaWtb (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2012 18:49:31 -0400 Received: from ganesha.gnumonks.org ([213.95.27.120]:51805 "EHLO ganesha.gnumonks.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754994Ab2EaWt3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2012 18:49:29 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1507 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Thu, 31 May 2012 18:49:29 EDT Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 00:24:07 +0200 From: Harald Welte To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH] List LGPL (v2 / v2.1) as GPL compatible in license_is_gpl_compatible() Message-ID: <20120531222407.GB5256@prithivi.gnumonks.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org It may be a highly unusual choice to license Linux kernel drivers under LGPL, but at least as long as LGPLv2 or LGPLv2.1 is used, this is fully GPL compatible and shouldn't taint the kernel. Signed-off-by: Harald Welte --- include/linux/license.h | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) NOTE: I've actually seen this happen in practise, where an embedded system ships with a LPGL licensed driver which in turn taints the kernel. I suppose this was not really the intention... diff --git a/include/linux/license.h b/include/linux/license.h index decdbf4..9c0df0e 100644 --- a/include/linux/license.h +++ b/include/linux/license.h @@ -8,7 +8,10 @@ static inline int license_is_gpl_compatible(const char *license) || strcmp(license, "GPL and additional rights") == 0 || strcmp(license, "Dual BSD/GPL") == 0 || strcmp(license, "Dual MIT/GPL") == 0 - || strcmp(license, "Dual MPL/GPL") == 0); + || strcmp(license, "Dual MPL/GPL") == 0 + || strcmp(license, "LGPL") == 0 + || strcmp(license, "LGPL v2") == 0 + || strcmp(license, "LGPL v2.1") == 0); } #endif -- 1.7.10