Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)

[Alan Cox]

> I really cannot see how you might have an attorney who wants ink on
> 2A but not 1A.
> I really cannot see how you might have an attorney who wants ink on
> 2B but not 1B.

Because their job is to protect their whomsoever they represent. They
protect them drawing upon case law and providing rules based upon
caselaw so that people don't have to keep bothering them.

The lawyers have caselaw for "either a or b" licensing. They don't have
caselaw for licence compatibility with your licence. Therefore it's a
risk.

> project. Since Linux *has* that macro though -- I think it is also
> also
> sufficiently clear that the license that applies when copyleft-next
> is
> used on Linux is GPLv2.

Show me the caselaw.


You'll note that the people concerned about this are people who work
for large companies and spend our time dealing with lawyers. This is
based upon experience (sometimes painful) not on theory.

Alan