Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible

From: Richard Fontana
Date: Tue Jul 19 2016 - 19:37:54 EST

On 07/19/2016 06:38 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:56:33PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 03:53:27PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>> copyleft-next [0] [1] 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 [2].
>>>> 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 [3].
>>>> 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 license.
>>>> 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
>>>> compatibility.
>>>> 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
>>>> [0]
>>>> [1]
>>>> [2]
>>>> [3]
>>>> v2:
>>>> o extend with copyleft-next as well for
>>>> MODULE_LICENSE() check - as suggested by Paul Bolle.
>>>> Cc: copyleft-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Cc: Richard Fontana <fontana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ciaran Farrell <Ciaran.Farrell@xxxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Christopher De Nicolo <Christopher.DeNicolo@xxxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 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.

Signed-off-by: Richard Fontana <fontana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>