From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755457AbdERXXA (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 May 2017 19:23:00 -0400 Received: from lang.hm ([66.167.227.134]:45309 "EHLO bifrost.lang.hm" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754928AbdERXWe (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 May 2017 19:22:34 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 744 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Thu, 18 May 2017 19:22:34 EDT Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 16:08:40 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@dlang-laptop To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" cc: "Theodore Ts'o" , Alan Cox , Linus Torvalds , AKASHI Takahiro , Greg KH , Rusty Russell , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ciaran.farrell@suse.com, christopher.denicolo@suse.com, fontana@sharpeleven.org, copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org, One Thousand Gnomes , Paul Bolle , Peter Anvin , Joe Perches Subject: 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) In-Reply-To: <20170518230442.GC8951@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20160722000747.GD5537@wotan.suse.de> <1470773075.12035.12.camel@linux.intel.com> <20160809201448.GE3296@wotan.suse.de> <20170511180211.GW28800@wotan.suse.de> <1494861494.7848.41.camel@linux.intel.com> <20170516232702.GL17314@wotan.suse.de> <20170517165502.b6jqdcmkgz6iyau2@thunk.org> <20170517174128.GQ17314@wotan.suse.de> <20170518221205.gcfs2t4ihlpx5kj6@thunk.org> <20170518230442.GC8951@wotan.suse.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.1 (DEB 209 2017-03-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 19 May 2017, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 06:12:05PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >> Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. So there are two major cases, >> with three sub-cases for each. >> >> 1) The driver is dual-licensed GPLv2 and copyleft-next >> >> 1A) The developer only wants to use the driver, without making >> any changes to it. >> >> 1B) The developer wants to make changes to the driver, and >> distribute source and binaries >> >> 1C) The developer wants to make changes to the driver, and >> contribute the changes back to upstream. >> >> 2) The driver is solely licensed under copyleft-next >> >> 2A) The developer only wants to use the driver, without making >> any changes to it. >> >> 2B) The developer wants to make changes to the driver, and >> distribute source and binaries >> >> 2C) The developer wants to make changes to the driver, and >> contribute the changes back to upstream. >> >> In cases 1A and 1B, I claim that no additional lawyer ink is required, > > 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. If something is under multiple licences, and one is a license that is known, you can just use that license and not worry (or even think) about what other licenses are available. But if it's a new license, then it needs to be analyzed, and that takes lawyer ink. That's why 1A and 1B are ok, you can ignore copyleft-next and just use GPLv2 David Lang