linux-kernel - Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 9 Aug 2016 17:46:30 -0400
From:	Richard Fontana <fontana@...rpeleven.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, torvalds@...ux.intel.com,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ciaran.farrell@...e.com,
	christopher.denicolo@...e.com,
	copyleft-next@...ts.fedorahosted.org, gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	tytso@....edu, pebolle@...cali.nl, hpa@...or.com, joe@...ches.com
Subject: Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2]
 module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:04:35PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Outside of the "derivative work" GPL clause they don't quite look
> compatible to me as a non-lawyer (eg the definition of "source code"
> looks to differ on scripts etc). 

The clause that permits derived works to be licensed under the GPL is
all that's needed for GPL compatibility (in the sense that combined
works of GPL-licensed and copyleft-next-licensed code can be licensed
under the GPL without imposition of any additional restrictions on
downstream recipients).

Richard