We originally committed the kernel modules as GPLv2 in d348c64000072af8051877a34b6912a181611d89, but relicensed as Apache2 ("Proprietary" as far as MODULE_LICENSE was concerned) in #62.
Concerns were raised in #107 and #108 about having a compatible license between these out-of-tree modules and the Linux kernel. At the same time, we also want to accommodate other projects that would be incompatible with GPL. Dual-licensing seems like the right compromise.
It might've been possible just to relicense the kernel modules, but that would mean a repository with three licenses in play and it would still have created obstacles preventing some members of the Linux community from using the full breadth of tests and utilities. Instead we make the the entire repository available as BSD 3-Clause or GPLv2 at users' option.
We originally committed the kernel modules as GPLv2 in d348c64000072af8051877a34b6912a181611d89, but relicensed as Apache2 (
"Proprietary"as far asMODULE_LICENSEwas concerned) in #62.Concerns were raised in #107 and #108 about having a compatible license between these out-of-tree modules and the Linux kernel. At the same time, we also want to accommodate other projects that would be incompatible with GPL. Dual-licensing seems like the right compromise.
It might've been possible just to relicense the kernel modules, but that would mean a repository with three licenses in play and it would still have created obstacles preventing some members of the Linux community from using the full breadth of tests and utilities. Instead we make the the entire repository available as BSD 3-Clause or GPLv2 at users' option.