From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 22:49:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1467233377.26658.2.camel@tiscali.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1465929311-13509-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org>
On di, 2016-06-14 at 11:35 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> 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.f
> edorahosted.org/thread/JTGV56DDADWGKU7ZKTZA4DLXTGTLNJ57/#SQMDIKBRAVDOC
> T4UVNOOCRGBN2UJIKHZ
>
> Cc: copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org
> Cc: Richard Fontana <fontana@sharpeleven.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ciaran Farrell <Ciaran.Farrell@suse.com>
> Signed-off-by: Christopher De Nicolo <Christopher.DeNicolo@suse.com>
> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org>
> ---
>
> 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(+)
Nit: there's a checkpatch rule for module license idents nowadays, so
this patch needs to update that rule too.
Paul Bolle
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-29 20:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-14 18:35 [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-06-29 19:05 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-06-29 19:46 ` Greg KH
2016-06-29 20:03 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-06-29 20:13 ` H. Peter Anvin
2016-06-29 21:43 ` Paul Bolle
2016-06-29 22:01 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-06-29 22:45 ` Paul Bolle
2016-06-29 23:01 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-06-29 23:22 ` Paul Bolle
2016-06-29 23:29 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-06-29 20:49 ` Paul Bolle [this message]
2016-06-30 22:50 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-06-30 22:53 ` [PATCH v2] " Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-07-01 15:42 ` Greg KH
2016-07-18 3:26 ` Rusty Russell
2016-07-19 22:38 ` Greg KH
2016-07-19 23:29 ` Richard Fontana
2016-07-21 6:04 ` Rusty Russell
2016-07-22 0:07 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-08-09 20:04 ` Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible) Alan Cox
2016-08-09 20:14 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-08-10 1:25 ` [copyleft-next] " Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-08-10 2:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-05-11 18:02 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-05-15 15:18 ` Alan Cox
2017-05-16 23:27 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-05-17 13:36 ` Alan Cox
2017-05-17 16:55 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-05-17 17:41 ` [copyleft-next] " Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-05-18 22:12 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-05-18 23:04 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-05-18 23:08 ` David Lang
2017-05-18 23:29 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-05-19 15:15 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-05-19 11:31 ` Alan Cox
2017-05-19 15:09 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-05-19 17:59 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-05-19 18:04 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-05-19 22:55 ` Alan Cox
2017-05-25 17:05 ` Pavel Machek
2017-05-25 17:31 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-05-25 20:14 ` Pavel Machek
2017-05-25 22:54 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-08-09 21:46 ` Richard Fontana
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1467233377.26658.2.camel@tiscali.nl \
--to=pebolle@tiscali.nl \
--cc=alan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=christopher.denicolo@suse.com \
--cc=ciaran.farrell@suse.com \
--cc=copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org \
--cc=fontana@sharpeleven.org \
--cc=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).