Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1643363

Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

From Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)
Date 2017-05-17 15:40 +0200
Message-ID <tI7lf-3Em-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (6 earlier) <s4lFf-3PL-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <s4rUl-7JF-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tG0Hf-1kn-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tHpWV-1pB-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tHU4F-3L8-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization Intel Corporation

Show all headers | View raw

> At the very least 3 attorneys have reviewed this by now. 2 at SUSE
> and
> one at Red Hat. At least.

In the big picture that's irrelevant. An attorney's job is to protect
their client or employer.

> "we rather avoid any attorneys burning any ink and we prefer to just
> always
> require this 'dual or' language even for licenses which corporate
> attorneys
> have vetted as compatible"
> 

Generally no because "You may apply license X or license Y" type
statements are built upon hundreds of years of caselaw, dealt with
regularly already by companies dealing with open source and in general
don't need lawyers to peer at it because there is already clear policy.

The last thing the kernel needs is two, then three, then five then ten
different funky supposedly compatible with GPL licences where it relies
upon someone saying they are compatible.

That has lead to historic problems - long ago people naïvely assumed
BSD 4 clause was GPL compatible. Then the lawyers realised it wasn't
then you have a mess.

If you proposed a chunk of code that was a long term maintenance pain
in the butt Linus would tell you to take a hike. Why is it different
when you are doing the same by trying to introduce weird, un-necessary
licence complexity ?

Alan

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2]  module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible) Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com> - 2017-05-15 17:20 +0200
  Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2]  module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible) "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2017-05-17 01:30 +0200
    Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2]  module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible) Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com> - 2017-05-17 15:40 +0200
    Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2]  module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible) Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> - 2017-05-17 19:00 +0200
      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) "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2017-05-17 19:50 +0200
        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) Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> - 2017-05-19 00:20 +0200
          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) "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2017-05-19 01:10 +0200
            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> - 2017-05-19 01:30 +0200
              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) "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2017-05-19 01:30 +0200
                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) Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> - 2017-05-19 17:20 +0200
            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) Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com> - 2017-05-19 13:40 +0200
              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) "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2017-05-19 17:10 +0200
                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) "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2017-05-19 20:10 +0200
                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) "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2017-05-19 20:10 +0200
                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) Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com> - 2017-05-20 01:00 +0200

csiph-web