Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

["Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough.  So there are two major cases,
with three sub-cases for each.

1)  The driver is dual-licensed GPLv2 and copyleft-next

   1A) The developer only wants to use the driver, without making
       any changes to it.

   1B) The developer wants to make changes to the driver, and 
       distribute source and binaries

   1C) The developer wants to make changes to the driver, and 
       contribute the changes back to upstream.

2)  The driver is solely licensed under copyleft-next

   2A) The developer only wants to use the driver, without making
       any changes to it.

   2B) The developer wants to make changes to the driver, and 
       distribute source and binaries

   2C) The developer wants to make changes to the driver, and 
       contribute the changes back to upstream.

In cases 1A and 1B, I claim that no additional lawyer ink is required,
because the code can just be distriuted under the terms of the rest of
the kernel --- namely, the GPLv2.  Even in the case where the
developer has made changes to the driver, the change can be released
only under the GPLv2, with the next result that in modified driver,
only the terms of the GPLv2 are controlling.

In the case of 1C, since the developer is contributing changes back to
upstream, and upstream presumably wants to keep the dual-license
nature of the source file, the developer will need to get permission
from their corporate counsel that it's OK for that company to release
code under the copyleft-next license.  And if the counsel is not
familiar with that license, they may need to research what
implications it might have towards the company's patents, etc.  So
there is extra ink in the case of 1C --- but fortunately, that's a
relatively small set in practice for most drivers.

In the single-license copyleft next case, in all of the cases
corporate counsel will need to be engaged if this is a new license and
they haven't analyzed the license yet.  So my claim is that 2A, 2B,
and 2C will require different amounts of extra, additional lawyer ink.

Does my reasoning make more sense now?

> b) Less boiler plate header, that's all. Pegging a dual thing would kind of
> defeat the purpose of the whole effort to make it as crystal clear as possible
> copyleft-next is GPLv2 compatible and its efforts to reduce license legalese.
> If its possible to avoid why not ask, which is what I've done.

I'll note, wrly, that lawyers can't agree on whether or not any boiler plate on
individual source files is needed at all.  Some might argue that:

MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");

is all that's needed, which is pretty simple.  :-)

							- Ted