From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752688AbcGVAHx (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jul 2016 20:07:53 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:40374 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751637AbcGVAHv (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jul 2016 20:07:51 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 02:07:47 +0200 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Greg KH Cc: Rusty Russell , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , 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, pebolle@tiscali.nl, hpa@zytor.com, joe@perches.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible Message-ID: <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160719223851.GA2783@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 03:38:51PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:56:33PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > > Greg KH writes: > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 03:53:27PM -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.fedorahosted.org/thread/JTGV56DDADWGKU7ZKTZA4DLXTGTLNJ57/#SQMDIKBRAVDOCT4UVNOOCRGBN2UJIKHZ > > >> > > >> v2: > > >> > > >> o extend checkpatch.pl with copyleft-next as well for > > >> MODULE_LICENSE() check - as suggested by Paul Bolle. > > >> > > >> 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 > > > > > > Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > > Adding a license here implies we accept that it's actually GPLv2 > > compatible. And IANAL. > > Note, at least lawyer has signed off on this. Clarification: *2 lawyers* at SUSE had Signed-off on this already. > I'd like to see Richard do so as well. With Richard that's 3 attorneys now. 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. Luis