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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1445767 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> - 2016-07-18 21:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-07-20 00:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible Richard Fontana <fontana@sharpeleven.org> - 2016-07-20 01:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2016-07-22 02:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> - 2016-07-24 14:20 +0200

#1445767 — Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible

Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> 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>

Adding a license here implies we accept that it's actually GPLv2
compatible.  And IANAL.

If such-licensed code gets openly accepted into the kernel, and nobody
complains, I'll send this to Linus.  Not a moment before.

Thanks,
Rusty.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1446760

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:56:33PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> > 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>
> 
> Adding a license here implies we accept that it's actually GPLv2
> compatible.  And IANAL.

Note, at least lawyer has signed off on this.

I'd like to see Richard do so as well.

thanks,

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1446798

On 07/19/2016 06:38 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:56:33PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:
>>> 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>
>>
>> Adding a license here implies we accept that it's actually GPLv2
>> compatible.  And IANAL.
> 
> Note, at least lawyer has signed off on this.
> 
> I'd like to see Richard do so as well.

Signed-off-by: Richard Fontana <fontana@sharpeleven.org>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1448267

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 03:38:51PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:56:33PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> > > 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>
> > 
> > Adding a license here implies we accept that it's actually GPLv2
> > compatible.  And IANAL.
> 
> Note, at least lawyer has signed off on this.

Clarification: *2 lawyers* at SUSE had Signed-off on this already.

> I'd like to see Richard do so as well.

With Richard that's 3 attorneys now.

I'll proceed to submit some code with this license as you request, Rusty.  Its
however not for modules yet so I would not make use of the
MODULE_LICENSE("copyleft-next") tag yet, however the license will be on top of
a header.

  Luis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1449125

Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:
>> Adding a license here implies we accept that it's actually GPLv2
>> compatible.  And IANAL.
>
> Note, at least lawyer has signed off on this.
>
> I'd like to see Richard do so as well.

Sure, but as I said before I'm not applying it until we have accepted
in-tree code which needs it.

If there's consensus that the kernel needs to accept YA license, I will
abide by it as module maintainer.  But I won't endorse it myself.

Thanks,
Rusty.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web