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 Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> > > So that yields:
>> > >
>> > >  * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
>> > >  * under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
>> > >  * Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or at your option) any
>> > >  * later version; or, when distributed separately from the Linux kernel or
>> > >  * incorporated into other software packages, subject to the
>> >
>> > You have more )s there than (s.
>>
>> Thanks just removed that pesky )
>>
>> > Can you get rid of the "when distributed separately from the Linux
>> > kernel or incorporated into other software packages," wording? I'm not
>> > exactly sure what it is trying to say, and if it limits the license
>> > below in any way.
>>
>> I had to pick an "or language" used already upstream and which folks were OK
>> with, this was one and I went with it. I prefer it as it makes it clear the
>> intent is outside of Linux I wish copyleft-next to apply.
>
> Yes, the intent is clear. What is not clear is if the intent is
> legally binding.

Code already is upstream (Xen) with this sort of or language. I think
that's sufficient for me, unless of course you have something better
to recommend.

 Luis