On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:09:07AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 15:24 +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > > table development go under copyleft-next, Rusty recently asked for
> > > code to go in prior to the license tag being added denoting this
> > > license as GPL-compatible [3] -- I had noted in the patch
> > > submission which annotated copyleft-next's compatibility to GPLv2
> > > that copyleft-next is the license of choice for ongoing kernel
> > > development on my end [4]. If this is objectionable I'm happy to
> > > change it to GPLv2 however I'd like a reason provided as I've gone
> > > through all possible channels to ensure this is kosher, including
> > > vetting by 3 attorneys now, 2 at SUSE.
> >
> > You don't need a new tag, you can use "GPL" or "GPL and additional
> > rights". In fact you don't want any other tag because when combined
> > with the kernel it is GPLv2 anyway because the only way the two are
> > fully compatible is for the kernel community to license the derived
> > work under the GPL.
>
> This is the module tag ... it says what licence the module is under,
> not the licence for the module combined with the kernel, which is
> always GPLv2 because the stricter licence rules.
As per Linus' recommendations [0] if I add a module I'll be using
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") if using copyleft-next. Either way this series
didn't add a module yet so no need for that yet, but it does use
copyleft-next in headers / C code.
[0]
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CA+55aFyhxcvD+q7tp+-yrSFDKfR0mOHgyEAe=f_94aklsou...@mail.gmail.com
> However, if I
> want my binary only modules to be combined with Linux, I have to follow
> GPLv2 compliance because GPLv2 becomes the ruling licence of the
> combination. The same would apply to this copyleft-next, even after 15
> years.
And this what really matters here.
> The US copyright office defines a copyright work as anything which is
> "an original work of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of
> expression". That means any change to an existing work (i.e. by a
> patch) which contains enough originality to make the changed work
> distinct from the old work is ipso facto a new work. under copyright
> -next this new work has a sunset 15 years from its creation by
> combination, not 15 years from the original. This means a constantly
> updated work never sunsets. Sure, you can go back 15 years and claim
> the code at that time has passed into the public domain but you can't
> do that if you also want the benefit of later changes.
Agreed.
Luis
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
