linux-kernel - 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)

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:   Fri, 19 May 2017 11:15:08 -0400
From:   Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Lang <david@...g.hm>, Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ciaran Farrell <ciaran.farrell@...e.com>,
        Christopher De Nicolo <christopher.denicolo@...e.com>,
        Richard Fontana <fontana@...rpeleven.org>,
        Discussion and development of copyleft-next 
        <copyleft-next@...ts.fedorahosted.org>,
        One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
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)

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 04:29:23PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> 
> 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".

By default, copyright law prohibits you from distributing, using, or
sublicensing any copyrighted materials at *all*.  The only reason why
you can is because of copyright license.

If one of the copyright licenses allows you to distribute, use, and/or
sublicense a particular piece of software you want to use, and you are
OK with meeting the requirements of that license, the fact that the
license might be available under a different set of terms is
irrelevant to you.

For example, if I say, "you may only use this piece of software if you
comply with the terms of the GPLv2, ***or*** if you agree to a license
which requires you to pay me ten million dollars and to run around
naked in Times Square, New York City for ten minutes, at high noon,
every Summer Soltice", so long as you are willing to agree to the
GPLv2, the fact that it is dual licensed under some other, completely
new, novel, and probably bogus license, doesn't really matter to a
lawyer who is advising someone who is contemplating using that piece
of software.

Even C compilers understand this concept:

	if (isGPLv2OK || isCopyleftNextOK) {
	   ....
	}

If "isGPLv2OK" is true, the compiler won't even bother evaluating
isCopyleftNextOK....

						- Ted