From: Richard Fontana <fontana@sharpeleven.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ciaran.farrell@suse.com,
christopher.denicolo@suse.com,
copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org, gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
alan@linux.intel.com, tytso@mit.edu, pebolle@tiscali.nl,
hpa@zytor.com, joe@perches.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 19:29:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e2f9f450-9aab-77fc-aad8-60b7b00b173f@sharpeleven.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160719223851.GA2783@kroah.com>
On 07/19/2016 06:38 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:56:33PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:
>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 03:53:27PM -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
>>>>
>>>> v2:
>>>>
>>>> o extend checkpatch.pl with copyleft-next as well for
>>>> MODULE_LICENSE() check - as suggested by Paul Bolle.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org
>>>> Cc: Richard Fontana <fontana@sharpeleven.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ciaran Farrell <Ciaran.Farrell@suse.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Christopher De Nicolo <Christopher.DeNicolo@suse.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org>
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>>
>> Adding a license here implies we accept that it's actually GPLv2
>> compatible. And IANAL.
>
> Note, at least lawyer has signed off on this.
>
> I'd like to see Richard do so as well.
Signed-off-by: Richard Fontana <fontana@sharpeleven.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-19 23:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-14 18:35 [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-06-29 19:05 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-06-29 19:46 ` Greg KH
2016-06-29 20:03 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-06-29 20:13 ` H. Peter Anvin
2016-06-29 21:43 ` Paul Bolle
2016-06-29 22:01 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-06-29 22:45 ` Paul Bolle
2016-06-29 23:01 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-06-29 23:22 ` Paul Bolle
2016-06-29 23:29 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-06-29 20:49 ` Paul Bolle
2016-06-30 22:50 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-06-30 22:53 ` [PATCH v2] " Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-07-01 15:42 ` Greg KH
2016-07-18 3:26 ` Rusty Russell
2016-07-19 22:38 ` Greg KH
2016-07-19 23:29 ` Richard Fontana [this message]
2016-07-21 6:04 ` Rusty Russell
2016-07-22 0:07 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-08-09 20:04 ` Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible) Alan Cox
2016-08-09 20:14 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-08-10 1:25 ` [copyleft-next] " Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-08-10 2:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-05-11 18:02 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-05-15 15:18 ` Alan Cox
2017-05-16 23:27 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-05-17 13:36 ` Alan Cox
2017-05-17 16:55 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-05-17 17:41 ` [copyleft-next] " Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-05-18 22:12 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-05-18 23:04 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-05-18 23:08 ` David Lang
2017-05-18 23:29 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-05-19 15:15 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-05-19 11:31 ` Alan Cox
2017-05-19 15:09 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-05-19 17:59 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-05-19 18:04 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-05-19 22:55 ` Alan Cox
2017-05-25 17:05 ` Pavel Machek
2017-05-25 17:31 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-05-25 20:14 ` Pavel Machek
2017-05-25 22:54 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2016-08-09 21:46 ` Richard Fontana
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=e2f9f450-9aab-77fc-aad8-60b7b00b173f@sharpeleven.org \
--to=fontana@sharpeleven.org \
--cc=alan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=christopher.denicolo@suse.com \
--cc=ciaran.farrell@suse.com \
--cc=copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org \
--cc=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=pebolle@tiscali.nl \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).