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 22:14:48 +0200
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.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, 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: 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:
> > > (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.

To be clear I first poked the Linux Foundation about this, I went through the
process recommended by them. If there is a process out of place its by no
means an issue on my end.

> > 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().

I'm personally fine with MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") being used with copyleft-next code
and find it sensible.

> 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). 

Up to the attorneys then.

  Luis