[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170519150920.GF8951@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 17:09:20 +0200
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
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, May 19, 2017 at 12:31:50PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Because their job is to protect their whomsoever they represent. They
> protect them drawing upon case law and providing rules based upon
> caselaw so that people don't have to keep bothering them.
>
> The lawyers have caselaw for "either a or b" licensing. They don't have
> caselaw for licence compatibility with your licence. Therefore it's a
> risk.
Alright, this makes sense.
As noted though there are a few "or" clauses, which upstream file
is a good template to use for copyleft-next ?
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists