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]

Message-ID: <20160810012530.GI3296@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Wed, 10 Aug 2016 03:25:30 +0200
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	joe@...ches.com, pebolle@...cali.nl, gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	christopher.denicolo@...e.com, hpa@...or.com,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, ciaran.farrell@...e.com,
	Discussion and development of copyleft-next 
	<copyleft-next@...ts.fedorahosted.org>
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 Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 10:14:48PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> 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.

Adding Linus now, for some reason I think you added him with an incorrect
domain name, Alan.

  Luis