[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAB=NE6Wzg2R_z5=Z3NMOGK0hjYDiOagRRAOPcse8JiA0X+zeQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 15:54:03 -0700
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, "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 <ciaran.farrell@...e.com>,
Christopher De Nicolo <christopher.denicolo@...e.com>,
Richard Fontana <fontana@...rpeleven.org>,
Discussion and development of copyleft-next
<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>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.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 Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> > > So that yields:
>> > >
>> > > * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
>> > > * under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
>> > > * Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or at your option) any
>> > > * later version; or, when distributed separately from the Linux kernel or
>> > > * incorporated into other software packages, subject to the
>> >
>> > You have more )s there than (s.
>>
>> Thanks just removed that pesky )
>>
>> > Can you get rid of the "when distributed separately from the Linux
>> > kernel or incorporated into other software packages," wording? I'm not
>> > exactly sure what it is trying to say, and if it limits the license
>> > below in any way.
>>
>> I had to pick an "or language" used already upstream and which folks were OK
>> with, this was one and I went with it. I prefer it as it makes it clear the
>> intent is outside of Linux I wish copyleft-next to apply.
>
> Yes, the intent is clear. What is not clear is if the intent is
> legally binding.
Code already is upstream (Xen) with this sort of or language. I think
that's sufficient for me, unless of course you have something better
to recommend.
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists