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

["Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 03:38:51PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:56:33PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> 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@lists.fedorahosted.org/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@lists.fedorahosted.org
> > >> Cc: Richard Fontana <fontana@sharpeleven.org>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Ciaran Farrell <Ciaran.Farrell@suse.com>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Christopher De Nicolo <Christopher.DeNicolo@suse.com>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org>
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > 
> > Adding a license here implies we accept that it's actually GPLv2
> > compatible.  And IANAL.
> 
> Note, at least lawyer has signed off on this.

Clarification: *2 lawyers* at SUSE had Signed-off on this already.

> I'd like to see Richard do so as well.

With Richard that's 3 attorneys now.

I'll proceed to submit some code with this license as you request, Rusty.  Its
however not for modules yet so I would not make use of the
MODULE_LICENSE("copyleft-next") tag yet, however the license will be on top of
a header.

  Luis