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

[Greg KH]

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] 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
> 
> v2:
> 
> o extend checkpatch.pl 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>