From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S965836AbdEOPS3 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 15 May 2017 11:18:29 -0400
Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:15749 "EHLO mga11.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S965636AbdEOPS1 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 15 May 2017 11:18:27 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,345,1491289200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="86975081"
Message-ID: <1494861494.7848.41.camel@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2]
 module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)
From: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, torvalds@linux.intel.com,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ciaran.farrell@suse.com, christopher.denicolo@suse.com,
        fontana@sharpeleven.org, copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org,
        One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 16:18:14 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20170511180211.GW28800@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>
         <1470773075.12035.12.camel@linux.intel.com>
         <20160809201448.GE3296@wotan.suse.de>
         <CA+55aFyhxcvD+q7tp+-yrSFDKfR0mOHgyEAe=f_94aKLsOu0Og@mail.gmail.com>
         <20170511180211.GW28800@wotan.suse.de>
Organization: Intel Corporation
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> such "or"
> language can be a bit confusing.  My understanding is such "or"
> language is
> really is only necessary or helpful for when you have some sort of
> incompatible
> licenses, and that's not the case here.

The problem is that it takes a lawyer to decide whether the two are
compatible. If you just stuck the kernel one under GPLv2 with a note
that you can get a non-GPL one at URL or as dual licence it would be a
hell of a lot simpler.

There are reasons there is stuff under things like dual BSD/GPL. It
keeps lawyers happier because they don't have to spend time on it and
the rest of us happy because we don't have to talk to lawyers 8)

> Since the license *already explicitly states GPLv2 applies* when
> copyleft-next

Subject to getting your corporate legal team to evaluate it.

It's all hassle and friction.

Alan