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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1644952

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)

From David Lang <david@lang.hm>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject 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)
Date 2017-05-19 01:30 +0200
Message-ID <tID1L-1LH-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (6 earlier) <tHU4F-3L8-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <tIasN-5zp-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tIbfb-66a-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tIBW1-169-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tICIp-1Ed-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

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

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