On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:08 PM, David Lang <da...@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
