Re: [PATCH v9 1/6] LICENSES: Add the copyleft-next-0.3.1 license

From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	Richard Fontana <fontana@sharpeleven.org>
Cc: tj@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, jeyu@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org,
	bvanassche@acm.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com, joe@perches.com,
	keescook@chromium.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, minchan@kernel.org,
	linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.com>, Kuno Woudt <kuno@frob.nl>,
	copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org,
	Ciaran Farrell <Ciaran.Farrell@suse.com>,
	Christopher De Nicolo <Christopher.DeNicolo@suse.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/6] LICENSES: Add the copyleft-next-0.3.1 license
Date: Wed, 25 May 2022 22:51:43 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <874k1dz674.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yo5f9nctTwHZqPbl@bombadil.infradead.org>

On Wed, May 25 2022 at 09:57, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 11:22:36PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> This paragraph is not really understandable for Joe Developer.
>> 
>>   copyleft-next-0.3.1 is explicitly compatible with GPLv2 (or later) and
>>   can therefore be used for kernel code. Though the best and recommended
>>   practice is to express this in the SPDX license identifier by
>>   licensing the code under both licenses expressed by the OR operator.
>> 
>> Hmm?
>
> Let me try clarifying this further, how about:
>
>    copyleft-next-0.3.1 is explicitly compatible with GPLv2 (or later) and
>    can therefore be used for kernel code. Despite this, if you use
>    copyleft-next-0.3.1 on Linux, the recommended practice is to express
>    dual licensing with GPL using in the SPDX license identifiers by
>    using by the OR operator.

  'using in the ..' ?

and

  'by using by' is off by one 'by' :)

I'm not seeing how that clarifies stuff further. I might be biased, but
the version I suggested is crystal clear.

>> > +  To use the copyleft-next-0.3.1 license put the following SPDX tag/value
>> > +  pair into a comment according to the placement guidelines in the
>> > +  licensing rules documentation:
>> > +    SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR copyleft-next-0.3.1
>> > +    SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR copyleft-next 0.3.1
>> > +    SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR copyleft-next-0.3.1
>> > +    SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR copyleft-next-0.3.1
>> 
>> Please don't propagate the GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0+ tags. They are
>> outdated (still valid) in the SPDX spec, which reminds me that I should
>> update the relevant documentation...
>
> OK thanks for the recommendation, I'll leave it at:
>
> +    SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR copyleft-next-0.3.1

	SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR copyleft-next-0.3.1

please. See my previous reply quoted above.

> +    SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR copyleft-next-0.3.1

Thanks,

        tglx