Date:	Fri, 1 Jul 2016 00:50:36 +0200
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Cc:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ciaran.farrell@...e.com,
	christopher.denicolo@...e.com, fontana@...rpeleven.org,
	copyleft-next@...ts.fedorahosted.org, gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	alan@...ux.intel.com, tytso@....edu, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:49:37PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On di, 2016-06-14 at 11:35 -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.f
> > edorahosted.org/thread/JTGV56DDADWGKU7ZKTZA4DLXTGTLNJ57/#SQMDIKBRAVDOC
> > T4UVNOOCRGBN2UJIKHZ
> > 
> > Cc: copyleft-next@...ts.fedorahosted.org
> > Cc: Richard Fontana <fontana@...rpeleven.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Ciaran Farrell <Ciaran.Farrell@...e.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Christopher De Nicolo <Christopher.DeNicolo@...e.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org>
> > ---
> > 
> > I've tested its use at run time as well obviously.
> > 
> >  include/linux/license.h | 1 +
> >  include/linux/module.h  | 1 +
> >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> Nit: there's a checkpatch rule for module license idents nowadays, so
> this patch needs to update that rule too.

Sure, thanks for the review, will respin a v2.
 
  Luis

Powered by blists - more mailing lists