On 24/07/25 4:08 pm, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 10:03:41AM +0000, Aditya Garg wrote: >> MIT is a widely used permissive free software license that is compatible >> with the GPLv2 license. This change adds it to the list of compatible >> licenses with GPLv2 in the kernel documentation. > > No, please don't. This isn't a proper place for talking about the > different license interactions. Ohk > >> >> Signed-off-by: Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@xxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst | 6 +++--- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst b/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst >> index 25ca49f7a..c3465e3aa 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst >> @@ -235,9 +235,9 @@ code must be compatible with version 2 of the GNU General Public License >> (GPLv2), which is the license covering the kernel distribution as a whole. >> In practice, that means that all code contributions are covered either by >> GPLv2 (with, optionally, language allowing distribution under later >> -versions of the GPL) or the three-clause BSD license. Any contributions >> -which are not covered by a compatible license will not be accepted into the >> -kernel. >> +versions of the GPL), the three-clause BSD license or the MIT license. > > You forgot a ',' anyway :( While it is no longer relevant, I wonder where you wanted the comma. Maybe you meant "the three-clause BSD license, or the MIT license"?
