On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof(a)kernel.org> wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 05:09:20PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> 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 ?
There seems to be a few "or" clauses. For instance:
a) you can pick either license [0]
b) gpl on Linux, otherwise this other license below [1]
To help uplift copyleft will go with b).
[0] drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/driver.c
[1] drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
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 following license:
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
* under the terms of copyleft-next (version 0.3.1 or later) as published
* at
http://copyleft-next.org/.
If there are issue please let me know.
Luis