Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 1 Jul 2016 08:42:58 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible |
| |
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>
| |