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

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:46:35PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 09:05:47PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:35:11AM -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] https://github.com/copyleft-next/copyleft-next
> > > [1] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/copyleft-next/
> > > [2] https://github.com/richardfontana/hbr/blob/master/HBR.md
> > > [3] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/copyleft-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/JTGV56DDADWGKU7ZKTZA4DLXTGTLNJ57/#SQMDIKBRAVDOCT4UVNOOCRGBN2UJIKHZ
> > > 
> > > 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>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > I've tested its use at run time as well obviously.
> > > 
> > >  include/linux/license.h | 1 +
> > >  include/linux/module.h  | 1 +
> > >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > 
> > Greg, Rusty,
> > 
> > I haven't seen any objections or questions, so just a friendly *poke*.
> 
> Shouldn't this go in _with_ a patch that actually adds code that uses
> the license?

Sure, I can fold it in another series that adds new code if that is
desirable. Unless I hear back I'll do that then.

  Luis