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