linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] LICENSES: add and use copyleft-next-0.3.1

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 8 Jul 2021 10:52:54 -0700
From:   "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@....org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuah@...nel.org, rafael@...nel.org,
        rgoldwyn@...e.com, kuno@...b.nl, fontana@...rpeleven.org,
        Ciaran.Farrell@...e.com, Christopher.DeNicolo@...e.com, hch@....de,
        corbet@....net, linux@...mhuis.info, ast@...nel.org,
        andriin@...com, daniel@...earbox.net, atenart@...nel.org,
        alobakin@...me, weiwan@...gle.com, ap420073@...il.com,
        tj@...nel.org, jeyu@...nel.org, ngupta@...are.org,
        sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com, minchan@...nel.org,
        axboe@...nel.dk, mbenes@...e.com, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
        keescook@...omium.org, jikos@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-spdx@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, copyleft-next@...ts.fedorahosted.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] LICENSES: add and use copyleft-next-0.3.1

Greg KH wrote:
> Let's keep it simple please, and not add new licenses for no real good
> reason if at all possible.

I've stated a number of real good reasons to keep copyleft-next as a
dual-licensing option; they seem to have not been refuted here. Indeed, this
point is quite salient:

Joe Perches wrote:
>>> You can ask but it's the submitter's choice to license their code however
>>> they desire.

… to which I'd add, as long as the license is GPLv2-only-compatible, which of
course (GPLv2-only|copyleft-next) is.


Rest is admittedly a bit OT:

Greg also noted:
> I have stated in public many times to companies that try to add
> dual-licensed new kernel code that they should only do so if they provide a
> really good reason

We can agree to disagree on the differences in how company vs. individual
requests and their "good reasons" are handled/prioritized; I think we'd both
agree it's actually moot anyway.  While it's an important topic, I apologize
for raising that as it was off-topic to the issue at hand.

On that off-topic point, Tim Bird added:
>> It's not at all purely symbolic to dual license (GPLv2-only|2-Clause-BSD).
>> That dual-licensing has allowed the interchange of a lot of code between
>> the BSD Unixes and Linux, that otherwise would not have happened.

This is a good point, but the same argument is of course valid for
copyleft-next-licensed projects.  While there are currently fewer than those
than BSD-ish projects, I don't think Linux should stand on ceremony of “your
project must be this tall to ride this ride” and share code with us … and
then there are the aspirational arguments that I made in my prior email.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - he/him

Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy:
https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/