Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	torvalds@linux.intel.com, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ciaran.farrell@suse.com,
	christopher.denicolo@suse.com, fontana@sharpeleven.org,
	copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org, gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	tytso@mit.edu, pebolle@tiscali.nl, hpa@zytor.com,
	joe@perches.com
Subject: Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 22:14:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160809201448.GE3296@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1470773075.12035.12.camel@linux.intel.com>

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:04:35PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > (Going back to pick up the specific licence thread)
> 
> > > 
> > > I'd like to see Richard do so as well.
> > With Richard that's 3 attorneys now.
> 
> None of whom I believe represent the Linux project or foundation ?
> 
> Linus has to make this call, nobody else and he is probablygoing to go
> ape if you try and sneak another licence into the kernel without
> flagging it up with him clearly first. You need to discuss it with
> Linus up front.

To be clear I first poked the Linux Foundation about this, I went through the
process recommended by them. If there is a process out of place its by no
means an issue on my end.

> > I'll proceed to submit some code with this license as you request,
> > Rusty.  Its
> > however not for modules yet so I would not make use of the
> > MODULE_LICENSE("copyleft-next") tag yet, however the license will be
> > on top of
> > a header.
> 
> We have the GPL/extra rights tag for this already. Also when it's
> merged with the kernel we'd I'm sure pick the derivative work under the
> GPL option so we'd only need the GPL tag.
> 
> There are specific reasons for the extra rights language - it avoids
> games like MODULE_LICENSE("BSD") and then giving people just a binary
> and it being counted as GPL compliant activity. The same problem exists
> in your licence post sunset. That single tag is also why we don't have
> to list BSD, MIT, and every variant thereof in the table which saves us
> so much pain. If you must have the actual text in the .ko file then put
> it in your MODULE_DESCRIPTION().

I'm personally fine with MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") being used with copyleft-next code
and find it sensible.

> Outside of the "derivative work" GPL clause they don't quite look
> compatible to me as a non-lawyer (eg the definition of "source code"
> looks to differ on scripts etc). 

Up to the attorneys then.

  Luis