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 S1754620AbdEQQzu (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 17 May 2017 12:55:50 -0400
Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:33318 "EHLO imap.thunk.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750795AbdEQQzW (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 17 May 2017 12:55:22 -0400
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 12:55:02 -0400
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>,
        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>,
        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)
Message-ID: <20170517165502.b6jqdcmkgz6iyau2@thunk.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>,
        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>,
        Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>, Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
References: <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>
 <1494861494.7848.41.camel@linux.intel.com>
 <20170516232702.GL17314@wotan.suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170516232702.GL17314@wotan.suse.de>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 01:27:02AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> 
> I have done the work though, however I can understand this might mean others
> down the chain might need to burn some ink on this. Even if our position is:
> 
> "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"
> 
> Wouldn't that still require a bit of ink?

What ink?  As far as the Kernel is concerned, it's dual-licensed GPLv2
and copyleft-next.  So for all Kernel users there isn't any lawyer ink
at all.

The lawyer ink comes from contributors being willing to let their code
contributions being dual-licensed with GPL2 plus a potentially
unfamiliar, new copyright license.  But that's overhead that
contributors would have to deal with in either case.  In fact, if you
try to go single-license copyleft-next, the contributors' corporate
lawyer will need to figure out the GPLv2 compatibility issue, so it's
*more* overhead with the proposed single-copyright license approach.

I'm not sure I understand what you believe to be the benefit of having
kernel modules solely licensed under copyleft-next and relying on
lawyers to say, "no really, it's GPLv2 compatible"?  Could you say
more about that?

	   	    	    	       - Ted