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: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	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: Fri, 19 May 2017 11:04:42 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAB=NE6VnftR-OR9iLFT3Lnbp4m35P0NFeGxNpRnAWvBbaemrFg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170519175912.GL8951@wotan.suse.de>

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 05:09:20PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:31:50PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>> > > 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.
>> >
>> > Because their job is to protect their whomsoever they represent. They
>> > protect them drawing upon case law and providing rules based upon
>> > caselaw so that people don't have to keep bothering them.
>> >
>> > The lawyers have caselaw for "either a or b" licensing. They don't have
>> > caselaw for licence compatibility with your licence. Therefore it's a
>> > risk.
>>
>> Alright, this makes sense.
>>
>> As noted though there are a few "or" clauses, which upstream file
>> is a good template to use for copyleft-next ?
>
> There seems to be a few "or" clauses. For instance:
>
> a) you can pick either license [0]
> b) gpl on Linux, otherwise this other license below [1]
>
> To help uplift copyleft will go with b).
>
> [0] drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/driver.c
> [1] drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c

So that yields:

 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
 * under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
 * Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or at your option) any
 * later version; or, when distributed separately from the Linux kernel or
 * incorporated into other software packages, subject to the following license:
 *
 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
 * under the terms of copyleft-next (version 0.3.1 or later) as published
 * at http://copyleft-next.org/.

If there are issue please let me know.

  Luis