From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751846AbcF2UPY (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jun 2016 16:15:24 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:48626 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751499AbcF2UPX (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jun 2016 16:15:23 -0400 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <20160629194635.GA23718@kroah.com> References: <1465929311-13509-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20160629190547.GB31219@wotan.suse.de> <20160629194635.GA23718@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible From: "H. Peter Anvin" Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 13:13:55 -0700 To: Greg KH , "Luis R. Rodriguez" CC: rusty@rustcorp.com.au, 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 Message-ID: <29D126DA-8BDF-40B2-A10F-AFDEFAFCBB7A@zytor.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On June 29, 2016 12:46:35 PM PDT, Greg KH wrote: >On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 09:05:47PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:35:11AM -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 >> > >> > 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 >> > --- >> > >> > I've tested its use at run time as well obviously. >> > >> > include/linux/license.h | 1 + >> > include/linux/module.h | 1 + >> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) >> > >> >> Greg, Rusty, >> >> I haven't seen any objections or questions, so just a friendly >*poke*. > >Shouldn't this go in _with_ a patch that actually adds code that uses >the license? > >thanks, > >greg k-h I would disagree; I think this is the sort of thing we should enable in the interest of forward compatibility and documentation. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse brevity and formatting.