All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [GIT PULL] Documentation: Add a file explaining the requested Linux kernel license enforcement policy
@ 2017-10-16  9:25 Greg KH
  2017-10-16  9:28 ` [PATCH] Documentation: Add a file explaining the Linux kernel license Greg KH
  2017-10-16 13:11 ` [GIT PULL] Documentation: Add a file explaining the requested Linux kernel license enforcement policy David Woodhouse
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2017-10-16  9:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Linus Torvalds, Andrew Morton; +Cc: linux-kernel

The following changes since commit 33d930e59a98fa10a0db9f56c7fa2f21a4aef9b9:

  Linux 4.14-rc5 (2017-10-15 21:01:12 -0400)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/driver-core.git/ tags/enforcement-4.14-rc6

for you to fetch changes up to 9ed95129ffcabbde564b40ffbbf9c26e8702d858:

  Documentation: Add a file explaining the Linux kernel license enforcement policy (2017-10-16 11:14:43 +0200)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation: Add a file explaining the requested Linux kernel license enforcement policy

Here's a pull request to add a new file to the kernel's Documentation directory.
It adds a short document describing the views of how the Linux kernel community
feels about enforcing the license of the kernel.

The patch has been reviewed by a large number of kernel developers already, as
seen by their acks on the patch, and their agreement of the statement with
their names on it.  The location of the file was also agreed upon by the
Documentation maintainer, so all should be good there.

For some background information about this statement, see this article
written by some of the kernel developers involved in drafting it:
	http://kroah.com/log/blog/2017/10/16/linux-kernel-community-enforcement-statement/
and this article that answers a number of questions that came up in the
discussion of this statement with the kernel developer community:
	http://kroah.com/log/blog/2017/10/16/linux-kernel-community-enforcement-statement-faq/

If anyone has any further questions about it, please let me, and the TAB
members, know and we will be glad to help answer them.

Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Kroah-Hartman (1):
      Documentation: Add a file explaining the Linux kernel license enforcement policy

 Documentation/process/index.rst                    |   1 +
 .../process/kernel-enforcement-statement.rst       | 147 +++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 148 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/process/kernel-enforcement-statement.rst

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [GIT PULL] Documentation: Add a file explaining the requested Linux kernel license enforcement policy
@ 2017-10-19 15:28 Pavel Nikulin
  2017-10-20  7:29 ` Greg KH
  2017-10-20 18:25 ` Alan Cox
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Nikulin @ 2017-10-19 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  Cc: gregkh, linux-kernel

Hold!

Greg, are you trying to put a new addendum to the terms of GPL v2?
I read the FAQ you posted, having you writing in that FAQ that this is
not a change to license terms is not enough. Modification of GPL V2
terms are explicitly disallowed. IF you want to put such writing into
kernel, a very explicit statement that aforementioned is nothing but a
personal promise of you and ONLY people whom put their names
there should be included. Like in a bold bold upper case text.

1. First

>Notwithstanding the termination provisions of the GPL-2.0 ... ... ...

Well, how we put it. That has no power over whether expedited
injunction will be issued if the license formally stays V2

The text of a license is the binding contract. 1. You can't put a
provision with a binding force to a contract retroactively. 2. This
has to be a change the formal enforcement provisions of the license,
no way other than that. They are not orthogonal to terms of GPL like
the developer certificate of origin.

2. Seconds

> then your license
+ from a PARTICULAR copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally,
+ unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally
+ terminates your license,

This effectively leaves things as they already are

>(b) permanently, if the copyright holder
+ fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to
+ 60 days after the cessation.

That's reasonable to say, but the codes of different countries have
own opinions over temporal reach of contract power. Say, a router
ships with a GPL incompliant firmware, an incompliance is found and
fixed, yet somebody 100% can sue for an incompliance in the past,
unless this phrase will be a part of binding terms of the contract.

3.

Copyright owners of kernel code have full right to seek compliance in
courts, individually for the part of code they wrote in any way they
wish, period. That includes asking courts for injunctions that may
have ruinous consequences. Having an expedited injunction provisions
on the table compels companies to get into compliance like nothing
else. This makes a difference whether an enforcement action has any
actual force or not.

Permanent incompliance leads to permanent license revocation under GPL
v2, unlike GPL v3.

When Linus took a specific commitment to keep Linux under V2 for
practical impossibility of changing the license for such a large
project, that was discussed over and over. People who contribute to
Linux kernel do so knowing that their copyright can be enforced under
that specific term. That is true for contributions that were made long
before the discussion over enforcement terms was a thing.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-12-10  8:21 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-10-16  9:25 [GIT PULL] Documentation: Add a file explaining the requested Linux kernel license enforcement policy Greg KH
2017-10-16  9:28 ` [PATCH] Documentation: Add a file explaining the Linux kernel license Greg KH
2017-10-16 13:16   ` Sumit Semwal
2017-10-18 17:21     ` Greg KH
2017-10-16 13:11 ` [GIT PULL] Documentation: Add a file explaining the requested Linux kernel license enforcement policy David Woodhouse
2017-10-16 13:46   ` Greg KH
2017-10-16 14:31     ` Bradley M. Kuhn
2017-10-16 14:50     ` David Woodhouse
2017-10-17 14:57       ` Greg KH
2017-12-10  8:21       ` Pavel Machek
2017-10-17  8:06     ` Greg KH
2017-10-19 15:28 Pavel Nikulin
2017-10-20  7:29 ` Greg KH
2017-10-20 18:25 ` Alan Cox
2017-10-21  8:03   ` Greg KH
2017-10-21 19:16   ` Pavel Nikulin
2017-10-22  2:28     ` Bradley M. Kuhn
2017-10-23  7:50     ` Greg KH
2017-10-23 13:11       ` Pavel Nikulin
2017-10-23 14:35         ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-10-23 17:47           ` Damian Tometzki
2017-10-23 18:26           ` Damian Tometzki

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.