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: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1705181606440.3616@qynat-yncgbc>
Date:   Thu, 18 May 2017 16:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Lang <david@...g.hm>
To:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
cc:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        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>,
        Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
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 Fri, 19 May 2017, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 06:12:05PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough.  So there are two major cases,
>> with three sub-cases for each.
>>
>> 1)  The driver is dual-licensed GPLv2 and copyleft-next
>>
>>    1A) The developer only wants to use the driver, without making
>>        any changes to it.
>>
>>    1B) The developer wants to make changes to the driver, and
>>        distribute source and binaries
>>
>>    1C) The developer wants to make changes to the driver, and
>>        contribute the changes back to upstream.
>>
>> 2)  The driver is solely licensed under copyleft-next
>>
>>    2A) The developer only wants to use the driver, without making
>>        any changes to it.
>>
>>    2B) The developer wants to make changes to the driver, and
>>        distribute source and binaries
>>
>>    2C) The developer wants to make changes to the driver, and
>>        contribute the changes back to upstream.
>>
>> In cases 1A and 1B, I claim that no additional lawyer ink is required,
>
> I really cannot see how you might have an attorney who wants ink on 2A but not 1A.
> I really cannot see how you might have an attorney who wants ink on 2B but not 1B.

If something is under multiple licences, and one is a license that is known, you 
can just use that license and not worry (or even think) about what other 
licenses are available.

But if it's a new license, then it needs to be analyzed, and that takes lawyer 
ink.

That's why 1A and 1B are ok, you can ignore copyleft-next and just use GPLv2

David Lang