linux-kernel - 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, 09 Aug 2016 21:04:35 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, torvalds@...ux.intel.com
Cc:	Rusty Russell <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,
	tytso@....edu, pebolle@...cali.nl, hpa@...or.com, joe@...ches.com
Subject: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2]
 module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

> > (Going back to pick up the specific licence thread)

> > 
> > I'd like to see Richard do so as well.
> With Richard that's 3 attorneys now.

None of whom I believe represent the Linux project or foundation ?

Linus has to make this call, nobody else and he is probablygoing to go
ape if you try and sneak another licence into the kernel without
flagging it up with him clearly first. You need to discuss it with
Linus up front.

> 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.

We have the GPL/extra rights tag for this already. Also when it's
merged with the kernel we'd I'm sure pick the derivative work under the
GPL option so we'd only need the GPL tag.

There are specific reasons for the extra rights language - it avoids
games like MODULE_LICENSE("BSD") and then giving people just a binary
and it being counted as GPL compliant activity. The same problem exists
in your licence post sunset. That single tag is also why we don't have
to list BSD, MIT, and every variant thereof in the table which saves us
so much pain. If you must have the actual text in the .ko file then put
it in your MODULE_DESCRIPTION().

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). 

Alan