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

[Greg KH]

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] 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>
> 
> 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.

thanks,

greg k-h