Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >> > > 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 >> > > *

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >> > > 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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

Hi! > > > 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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

Hi! > > > 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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 07:05:18PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > >> 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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 07:05:18PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > >> 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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

Hi! > >> 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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

Hi! > >> 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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

> 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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

> 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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez 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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez 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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

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 >

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

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 >

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 04:29:23PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > 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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 04:29:23PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > 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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

> 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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

> 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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:08 PM, David Lang 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. >>>

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:08 PM, David Lang 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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

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

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:55:02PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > 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:

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:55:02PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > 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:

Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

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

Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

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

Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

> At the very least 3 attorneys have reviewed this by now. 2 at SUSE > and > one at Red Hat. At least. In the big picture that's irrelevant. An attorney's job is to protect their client or employer. > "we rather avoid any attorneys burning any ink and we prefer to just > always > require this

Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

> At the very least 3 attorneys have reviewed this by now. 2 at SUSE > and > one at Red Hat. At least. In the big picture that's irrelevant. An attorney's job is to protect their client or employer. > "we rather avoid any attorneys burning any ink and we prefer to just > always > require this

Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 04:18:14PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > such "or" language can be a bit confusing.  My understanding is such "or" > > language is really is only necessary or helpful for when you have some sort > > of incompatible licenses, and that's not the case here. > > The problem is

Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 04:18:14PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > such "or" language can be a bit confusing.  My understanding is such "or" > > language is really is only necessary or helpful for when you have some sort > > of incompatible licenses, and that's not the case here. > > The problem is

Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

> such "or" > language can be a bit confusing.  My understanding is such "or" > language is > really is only necessary or helpful for when you have some sort of > incompatible > licenses, and that's not the case here. The problem is that it takes a lawyer to decide whether the two are compatible.

Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

> such "or" > language can be a bit confusing.  My understanding is such "or" > language is > really is only necessary or helpful for when you have some sort of > incompatible > licenses, and that's not the case here. The problem is that it takes a lawyer to decide whether the two are compatible.

Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

Sorry this is an old topic now but a clarification was requested by AKASHI, so following up. On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 07:58:27PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > I'm personally fine with MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") being

Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

Sorry this is an old topic now but a clarification was requested by AKASHI, so following up. On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 07:58:27PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > I'm personally fine with MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") being used with > >

Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > I'm personally fine with MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") being used with copyleft-next > code > and find it sensible. I'd rather have the kernel license be as clear as possible, so I'd tend to prefer that

Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > I'm personally fine with MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") being used with copyleft-next > code > and find it sensible. I'd rather have the kernel license be as clear as possible, so I'd tend to prefer that MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") and then if

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 10:14:48PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:04:35PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > (Going back to pick up the specific licence thread) > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to see Richard do so as well. > > > With Richard that's 3 attorneys now. > > >

Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 10:14:48PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:04:35PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > (Going back to pick up the specific licence thread) > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to see Richard do so as well. > > > With Richard that's 3 attorneys now. > > >

Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:04:35PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > Outside of the "derivative work" GPL clause they don't quite look > compatible to me as a non-lawyer (eg the definition of "source code" > looks to differ on scripts etc).  The clause that permits derived works to be licensed under the

Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:04:35PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > Outside of the "derivative work" GPL clause they don't quite look > compatible to me as a non-lawyer (eg the definition of "source code" > looks to differ on scripts etc).  The clause that permits derived works to be licensed under the

Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:04:35PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > (Going back to pick up the specific licence thread) > > > > > > > I'd like to see Richard do so as well. > > With Richard that's 3 attorneys now. > > None of whom I believe represent the Linux project or foundation ? > > Linus has

Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:04:35PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > (Going back to pick up the specific licence thread) > > > > > > > I'd like to see Richard do so as well. > > With Richard that's 3 attorneys now. > > None of whom I believe represent the Linux project or foundation ? > > Linus has

Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

> > (Going back to pick up the specific licence thread) > > > > I'd like to see Richard do so as well. > With Richard that's 3 attorneys now. None of whom I believe represent the Linux project or foundation ? Linus has to make this call, nobody else and he is probablygoing to go ape if you try

Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

> > (Going back to pick up the specific licence thread) > > > > I'd like to see Richard do so as well. > With Richard that's 3 attorneys now. None of whom I believe represent the Linux project or foundation ? Linus has to make this call, nobody else and he is probablygoing to go ape if you try