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)

From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ciaran Farrell <ciaran.farrell@suse.com>,
	Christopher De Nicolo <christopher.denicolo@suse.com>,
	Richard Fontana <fontana@sharpeleven.org>,
	Discussion and development of copyleft-next 
	<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: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 16:29:23 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAB=NE6Vau+O6syOW4VD4Y1j7iLEM-D129=HV=p6u8nGGN65YQg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1705181606440.3616@qynat-yncgbc>

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:08 PM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May 2017, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 06:12:05PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>>>
>>> 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,
>>
>>
>> I really cannot see how you might have an attorney who wants ink on 2A but
>> not 1A.
>> I really cannot see how you might have an attorney who wants ink on 2B but
>> not 1B.
>
>
> If something is under multiple licences, and one is a license that is known,
> you can just use that license and not worry (or even think) about what other
> licenses are available.
>
> But if it's a new license, then it needs to be analyzed, and that takes
> lawyer ink.
>
> That's why 1A and 1B are ok, you can ignore copyleft-next and just use GPLv2

The article I had referred to indicates how there are actually
*several* "or" clauses, and ambiguity between what they might mean.
Hence my surprise attorneys would exist who choose to green light all
code with a magical "or clause".

 Luis