On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 01:27:02AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
I have done the work though, however I can understand this might mean others
down the chain might need to burn some ink on this. Even if our position is:
"we rather avoid any attorneys burning any ink and we prefer to just always
require this 'dual or' language even for licenses which corporate attorneys
have vetted as compatible"
Wouldn't that still require a bit of ink?
What ink? As far as the Kernel is concerned, it's dual-licensed GPLv2
and copyleft-next. So for all Kernel users there isn't any lawyer ink
at all.
The lawyer ink comes from contributors being willing to let their code
contributions being dual-licensed with GPL2 plus a potentially
unfamiliar, new copyright license. But that's overhead that
contributors would have to deal with in either case. In fact, if you
try to go single-license copyleft-next, the contributors' corporate
lawyer will need to figure out the GPLv2 compatibility issue, so it's
*more* overhead with the proposed single-copyright license approach.
I'm not sure I understand what you believe to be the benefit of having
kernel modules solely licensed under copyleft-next and relying on
lawyers to say, "no really, it's GPLv2 compatible"? Could you say
more about that?
- Ted