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)

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 05:09:20PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:31:50PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> Alright, this makes sense.
> 
> As noted though there are a few "or" clauses, which upstream file
> is a good template to use for copyleft-next ?

There seems to be a few "or" clauses. For instance:

a) you can pick either license [0]
b) gpl on Linux, otherwise this other license below [1]

To help uplift copyleft will go with b).

[0] drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/driver.c
[1] drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c

  Luis