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)

[David Lang <david@lang.hm>]

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

David Lang