From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932736AbcFNSgH (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jun 2016 14:36:07 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:44852 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932422AbcFNSf1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jun 2016 14:35:27 -0400 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au Cc: 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, alan@linux.intel.com, tytso@mit.edu, "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Ciaran Farrell , Christopher De Nicolo Subject: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:35:11 -0700 Message-Id: <1465929311-13509-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org copyleft-next [0] [1] is an openly evolved copyleft license, its an effort to evolve copyleft without participation of the Church (TM) or State (R), completley openly to the extend development and discussion of copyleft-next by participants of the copyleft-next project are governed by the Harvey Birdman Rule [2]. Even though it has been a goal of the project to be GPL-v2 compatible to be certain I've asked for a clarification about what makes copyleft-next GPLv2 compatible and also asked for a summary of benefits. This prompted some small minor changes to make compatiblity even further clear and as of copyleft 0.3.1 compatibility should be crystal clear [3]. The summary of why copyleft-next 0.3.1 is compatible with GPLv2 is explained as follows: Like GPLv2, copyleft-next requires distribution of derivative works ("Derived Works" in copyleft-next 0.3.x) to be under the same license. Ordinarily this would make the two licenses incompatible. However, copyleft-next 0.3.1 says: "If the Derived Work includes material licensed under the GPL, You may instead license the Derived Work under the GPL." "GPL" is defined to include GPLv2. In practice this means copyleft-next code in Linux may be licensed under the GPL2, however there are additional obvious gains for bringing contributins from Linux outbound where copyleft-next is preferred. To help review further I've also independently reviewed compatiblity with attorneys at SUSE and they agree with the compatibility. A summary of benefits of copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 over GPLv2 is listed below, it shows *why* some folks like myself will prefer it over GPLv2 for future work. o It is much shorter and simpler o It has an explicit patent license grant, unlike GPLv2 o Its notice preservation conditions are clearer o More free software/open source licenses are compatible with it (via section 4) o The source code requirement triggered by binary distribution is much simpler in a procedural sense o Recipients potentially have a contract claim against distributors who are noncompliant with the source code requirement o There is a built-in inbound=outbound policy for upstream contributions (cf. Apache License 2.0 section 5) o There are disincentives to engage in the controversial practice of copyleft/ proprietary dual-licensing o In 15 years copyleft expires, which can be advantageous for legacy code o There are explicit disincentives to bringing patent infringement claims accusing the licensed work of infringement (see 10b) o There is a cure period for licensees who are not compliant with the license (there is no cure opportunity in GPLv2) o copyleft-next has a 'built-in or-later' provision [0] https://github.com/copyleft-next/copyleft-next [1] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/copyleft-next/ [2] https://github.com/richardfontana/hbr/blob/master/HBR.md [3] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org/thread/JTGV56DDADWGKU7ZKTZA4DLXTGTLNJ57/#SQMDIKBRAVDOCT4UVNOOCRGBN2UJIKHZ Cc: copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org Cc: Richard Fontana Signed-off-by: Ciaran Farrell Signed-off-by: Christopher De Nicolo Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez --- I've tested its use at run time as well obviously. include/linux/license.h | 1 + include/linux/module.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/include/linux/license.h b/include/linux/license.h index decdbf43cb5c..ed7c13a6b556 100644 --- a/include/linux/license.h +++ b/include/linux/license.h @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ static inline int license_is_gpl_compatible(const char *license) { return (strcmp(license, "GPL") == 0 || strcmp(license, "GPL v2") == 0 + || strcmp(license, "copyleft-next") == 0 || strcmp(license, "GPL and additional rights") == 0 || strcmp(license, "Dual BSD/GPL") == 0 || strcmp(license, "Dual MIT/GPL") == 0 diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h index f777164c238b..24c520ff62e1 100644 --- a/include/linux/module.h +++ b/include/linux/module.h @@ -182,6 +182,7 @@ void trim_init_extable(struct module *m); * The following license idents are currently accepted as indicating free * software modules * + * "copyleft-next" [copyleft-next 0.3.1 or later] * "GPL" [GNU Public License v2 or later] * "GPL v2" [GNU Public License v2] * "GPL and additional rights" [GNU Public License v2 rights and more] -- 2.8.2