From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752627AbcHIUO4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2016 16:14:56 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46013 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752560AbcHIUOw (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2016 16:14:52 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 22:14:48 +0200 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Alan Cox Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Greg KH , torvalds@linux.intel.com, 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 Subject: Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible) Message-ID: <20160809201448.GE3296@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1470773075.12035.12.camel@linux.intel.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, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:04:35PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > (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. To be clear I first poked the Linux Foundation about this, I went through the process recommended by them. If there is a process out of place its by no means an issue on my end. > > 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(). I'm personally fine with MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") being used with copyleft-next code and find it sensible. > 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).  Up to the attorneys then. Luis