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]

Message-ID: <1494861494.7848.41.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 May 2017 16:18:14 +0100
From:   Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>
Cc:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, torvalds@...ux.intel.com,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ciaran.farrell@...e.com, christopher.denicolo@...e.com,
        fontana@...rpeleven.org, copyleft-next@...ts.fedorahosted.org,
        One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, Joe Perches <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)

> such "or"
> language can be a bit confusing.  My understanding is such "or"
> language is
> really is only necessary or helpful for when you have some sort of
> incompatible
> licenses, and that's not the case here.

The problem is that it takes a lawyer to decide whether the two are
compatible. If you just stuck the kernel one under GPLv2 with a note
that you can get a non-GPL one at URL or as dual licence it would be a
hell of a lot simpler.

There are reasons there is stuff under things like dual BSD/GPL. It
keeps lawyers happier because they don't have to spend time on it and
the rest of us happy because we don't have to talk to lawyers 8)

> Since the license *already explicitly states GPLv2 applies* when
> copyleft-next

Subject to getting your corporate legal team to evaluate it.

It's all hassle and friction.

Alan