On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:08 PM, David Lang <david(a)lang.hm> wrote:
> 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
The article I had referred to indicates how there are actually
*several* "or" clauses, and ambiguity between what they might mean.
Hence my surprise attorneys would exist who choose to green light all
code with a magical "or clause".
Luis