From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752667AbcGSXhv (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jul 2016 19:37:51 -0400 Received: from slow1-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.178.86]:45503 "EHLO slow1-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752209AbcGSXhs (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jul 2016 19:37:48 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 71.184.123.125 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible To: Greg KH , Rusty Russell References: <1465929311-13509-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org> <1467327207-14916-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20160701154258.GA32760@kroah.com> <87y44zhbiu.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <20160719223851.GA2783@kroah.com> Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , 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 From: Richard Fontana Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 19:29:00 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160719223851.GA2783@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 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 >>>> Signed-off-by: Ciaran Farrell >>>> Signed-off-by: Christopher De Nicolo >>>> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez >>> >>> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman >> >> 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