On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:04:35PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > (Going back to pick up the specific licence thread)
>
> > >
> > > I'd like to see Richard do so as well.
> > With Richard that's 3 attorneys now.
>
> None of whom I believe represent the Linux project or foundation ?
>
> Linus has to make this call, nobody else and he is probablygoing to go
> ape if you try and sneak another licence into the kernel without
> flagging it up with him clearly first. You need to discuss it with
> Linus up front.
To be clear I first poked the Linux Foundation about this, I went through the
process recommended by them. If there is a process out of place its by no
means an issue on my end.
> > I'll proceed to submit some code with this license as you request,
> > Rusty. Its
> > however not for modules yet so I would not make use of the
> > MODULE_LICENSE("copyleft-next") tag yet, however the license will be
> > on top of
> > a header.
>
> We have the GPL/extra rights tag for this already. Also when it's
> merged with the kernel we'd I'm sure pick the derivative work under the
> GPL option so we'd only need the GPL tag.
>
> There are specific reasons for the extra rights language - it avoids
> games like MODULE_LICENSE("BSD") and then giving people just a binary
> and it being counted as GPL compliant activity. The same problem exists
> in your licence post sunset. That single tag is also why we don't have
> to list BSD, MIT, and every variant thereof in the table which saves us
> so much pain. If you must have the actual text in the .ko file then put
> it in your MODULE_DESCRIPTION().
I'm personally fine with MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") being used with copyleft-next code
and find it sensible.
> Outside of the "derivative work" GPL clause they don't quite look
> compatible to me as a non-lawyer (eg the definition of "source code"
> looks to differ on scripts etc).
Up to the attorneys then.
Luis