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


Groups > linux.kernel > #1650691

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 "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
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 2017-05-25 19:40 +0200
Message-ID <tL4TT-2Ht-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (5 earlier) <tIOqd-1ui-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tIRHs-3XA-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <tIUvE-5Pe-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tIUvE-5Pe-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tL4qS-2vP-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 07:05:18PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > >> Alright, this makes sense.
> > >>
> > >> As noted though there are a few "or" clauses, which upstream file
> > >> is a good template to use for copyleft-next ?
> > >
> > > There seems to be a few "or" clauses. For instance:
> > >
> > > a) you can pick either license [0]
> > > b) gpl on Linux, otherwise this other license below [1]
> > >
> > > To help uplift copyleft will go with b).
> > >
> > > [0] drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/driver.c
> > > [1] drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> > 
> > So that yields:
> > 
> >  * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> >  * under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
> >  * Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or at your option) any
> >  * later version; or, when distributed separately from the Linux kernel or
> >  * incorporated into other software packages, subject to the
> 
> You have more )s there than (s.

Thanks just removed that pesky )

> Can you get rid of the "when distributed separately from the Linux
> kernel or incorporated into other software packages," wording? I'm not
> exactly sure what it is trying to say, and if it limits the license
> below in any way.

I had to pick an "or language" used already upstream and which folks were OK
with, this was one and I went with it. I prefer it as it makes it clear the
intent is outside of Linux I wish copyleft-next to apply.

  Luis

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


Thread

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) Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-05-25 19:10 +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> - 2017-05-25 19:40 +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) Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-05-25 22:20 +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> - 2017-05-26 01:00 +0200

csiph-web