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

["Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>]

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 04:18:14PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > such "or" language can be a bit confusing.  My understanding is such "or"
> > language is really is only necessary or helpful for when you have some sort
> > of incompatible licenses, and that's not the case here.
> 
> The problem is that it takes a lawyer to decide whether the two are
> compatible.

At the very least 3 attorneys have reviewed this by now. 2 at SUSE and
one at Red Hat. At least.

> If you just stuck the kernel one under GPLv2 with a note
> that you can get a non-GPL one at URL or as dual licence it would be a
> hell of a lot simpler.
> 
> There are reasons there is stuff under things like dual BSD/GPL.

I recall -- you clarified this to me a while back.

> It keeps lawyers happier because they don't have to spend time on it and
> the rest of us happy because we don't have to talk to lawyers 8)

I see, makes sense.

> > Since the license *already explicitly states GPLv2 applies* when
> > copyleft-next
> 
> Subject to getting your corporate legal team to evaluate it.

But I did, and I did try to go through any other process to vet for it.
The clarity should help us avoid the "dual or" language.

> It's all hassle and friction.

I have done the work though, however I can understand this might mean others
down the chain might need to burn some ink on this. Even if our position is:

"we rather avoid any attorneys burning any ink and we prefer to just always
require this 'dual or' language even for licenses which corporate attorneys
have vetted as compatible"

Wouldn't that still require a bit of ink?

  Luis