From: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.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>
Subject: Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 14:36:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1495028163.7848.52.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170516232702.GL17314@wotan.suse.de>
> At the very least 3 attorneys have reviewed this by now. 2 at SUSE
> and
> one at Red Hat. At least.
In the big picture that's irrelevant. An attorney's job is to protect
their client or employer.
> "we rather avoid any attorneys burning any ink and we prefer to just
> always
> require this 'dual or' language even for licenses which corporate
> attorneys
> have vetted as compatible"
>
Generally no because "You may apply license X or license Y" type
statements are built upon hundreds of years of caselaw, dealt with
regularly already by companies dealing with open source and in general
don't need lawyers to peer at it because there is already clear policy.
The last thing the kernel needs is two, then three, then five then ten
different funky supposedly compatible with GPL licences where it relies
upon someone saying they are compatible.
That has lead to historic problems - long ago people naïvely assumed
BSD 4 clause was GPL compatible. Then the lawyers realised it wasn't
then you have a mess.
If you proposed a chunk of code that was a long term maintenance pain
in the butt Linus would tell you to take a hike. Why is it different
when you are doing the same by trying to introduce weird, un-necessary
licence complexity ?
Alan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-17 13:36 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
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 [this message]
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=1495028163.7848.52.camel@linux.intel.com \
--to=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=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=pebolle@tiscali.nl \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=takahiro.akashi@linaro.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux.intel.com \
--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).