From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932416AbcHIUFS (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2016 16:05:18 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:44714 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932331AbcHIUFQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2016 16:05:16 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,496,1464678000"; d="scan'208";a="746467917" Message-ID: <1470773075.12035.12.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible) From: Alan Cox To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Greg KH , torvalds@linux.intel.com Cc: Rusty Russell , 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, tytso@mit.edu, pebolle@tiscali.nl, hpa@zytor.com, joe@perches.com In-Reply-To: <20160722000747.GD5537@wotan.suse.de> References: <1465929311-13509-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org> <1467327207-14916-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20160701154258.GA32760@kroah.com> <87y44zhbiu.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <20160719223851.GA2783@kroah.com> <20160722000747.GD5537@wotan.suse.de> Organization: Intel Corporation Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 21:04:35 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2 (3.18.5.2-1.fc23) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > (Going back to pick up the specific licence thread) > > > > I'd like to see Richard do so as well. > With Richard that's 3 attorneys now. None of whom I believe represent the Linux project or foundation ? Linus has to make this call, nobody else and he is probablygoing to go ape if you try and sneak another licence into the kernel without flagging it up with him clearly first. You need to discuss it with Linus up front. > I'll proceed to submit some code with this license as you request, > Rusty.  Its > however not for modules yet so I would not make use of the > MODULE_LICENSE("copyleft-next") tag yet, however the license will be > on top of > a header. We have the GPL/extra rights tag for this already. Also when it's merged with the kernel we'd I'm sure pick the derivative work under the GPL option so we'd only need the GPL tag. There are specific reasons for the extra rights language - it avoids games like MODULE_LICENSE("BSD") and then giving people just a binary and it being counted as GPL compliant activity. The same problem exists in your licence post sunset. That single tag is also why we don't have to list BSD, MIT, and every variant thereof in the table which saves us so much pain. If you must have the actual text in the .ko file then put it in your MODULE_DESCRIPTION(). Outside of the "derivative work" GPL clause they don't quite look compatible to me as a non-lawyer (eg the definition of "source code" looks to differ on scripts etc).  Alan