Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Jun 2016 22:03:30 +0200 | From | "Luis R. Rodriguez" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible |
| |
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:46:35PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 09:05:47PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:35:11AM -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 > > > > > > 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> > > > --- > > > > > > I've tested its use at run time as well obviously. > > > > > > include/linux/license.h | 1 + > > > include/linux/module.h | 1 + > > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > Greg, Rusty, > > > > I haven't seen any objections or questions, so just a friendly *poke*. > > Shouldn't this go in _with_ a patch that actually adds code that uses > the license?
Sure, I can fold it in another series that adds new code if that is desirable. Unless I hear back I'll do that then.
Luis
| |