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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1650664 > unrolled 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)

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: [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

#1650664 — 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)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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.

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.

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1650691

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

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

#1650797

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi!

> > > 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.

Yes, the intent is clear. What is not clear is if the intent is
legally binding.

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

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

#1650960

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> > > 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.
>
> Yes, the intent is clear. What is not clear is if the intent is
> legally binding.

Code already is upstream (Xen) with this sort of or language. I think
that's sufficient for me, unless of course you have something better
to recommend.

 Luis

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web