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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1644955

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)

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:08 PM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
> 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

The article I had referred to indicates how there are actually
*several* "or" clauses, and ambiguity between what they might mean.
Hence my surprise attorneys would exist who choose to green light all
code with a magical "or clause".

 Luis

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