On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:56:33PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Greg KH <gregkh(a)linuxfoundation.org> writes:
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 03:53:27PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> copyleft-next   is an openly evolved copyleft license, its an
>>> effort to evolve copyleft without participation of the Church (TM)
>>> or State (R), completley openly to the extend development and
>>> discussion of copyleft-next by participants of the copyleft-next
>>> project are governed by the Harvey Birdman Rule .
>>> Even though it has been a goal of the project to be GPL-v2 compatible
>>> to be certain I've asked for a clarification about what makes
>>> copyleft-next GPLv2 compatible and also asked for a summary of
>>> benefits. This prompted some small minor changes to make compatiblity
>>> even further clear and as of copyleft 0.3.1 compatibility should
>>> be crystal clear .
>>> The summary of why copyleft-next 0.3.1 is compatible with GPLv2
>>> is explained as follows:
>>> Like GPLv2, copyleft-next requires distribution of derivative works
>>> ("Derived Works" in copyleft-next 0.3.x) to be under the same
>>> Ordinarily this would make the two licenses incompatible. However,
>>> copyleft-next 0.3.1 says: "If the Derived Work includes material
>>> licensed under the GPL, You may instead license the Derived Work under
>>> the GPL." "GPL" is defined to include GPLv2.
>>> In practice this means copyleft-next code in Linux may be licensed
>>> under the GPL2, however there are additional obvious gains for
>>> bringing contributins from Linux outbound where copyleft-next is
>>> preferred. To help review further I've also independently reviewed
>>> compatiblity with attorneys at SUSE and they agree with the
>>> A summary of benefits of copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 over GPLv2 is listed
>>> below, it shows *why* some folks like myself will prefer it over
>>> GPLv2 for future work.
>>> o It is much shorter and simpler
>>> o It has an explicit patent license grant, unlike GPLv2
>>> o Its notice preservation conditions are clearer
>>> o More free software/open source licenses are compatible
>>> with it (via section 4)
>>> o The source code requirement triggered by binary distribution
>>> is much simpler in a procedural sense
>>> o Recipients potentially have a contract claim against distributors
>>> who are noncompliant with the source code requirement
>>> o There is a built-in inbound=outbound policy for upstream
>>> contributions (cf. Apache License 2.0 section 5)
>>> o There are disincentives to engage in the controversial practice
>>> of copyleft/ proprietary dual-licensing
>>> o In 15 years copyleft expires, which can be advantageous
>>> for legacy code
>>> o There are explicit disincentives to bringing patent infringement
>>> claims accusing the licensed work of infringement (see 10b)
>>> o There is a cure period for licensees who are not compliant
>>> with the license (there is no cure opportunity in GPLv2)
>>> o copyleft-next has a 'built-in or-later' provision
>>>  https://github.com/copyleft-next/copyleft-next
>>>  https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/copyleft-next/
>>>  https://github.com/richardfontana/hbr/blob/master/HBR.md
>>> o extend checkpatch.pl with copyleft-next as well for
>>> MODULE_LICENSE() check - as suggested by Paul Bolle.
>>> Cc: copyleft-next(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>>> Cc: Richard Fontana <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ciaran Farrell <Ciaran.Farrell(a)suse.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christopher De Nicolo <Christopher.DeNicolo(a)suse.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof(a)kernel.org>
>> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh(a)linuxfoundation.org>
> Adding a license here implies we accept that it's actually GPLv2
> compatible. And IANAL.
Note, at least lawyer has signed off on this.
I'd like to see Richard do so as well.