Greg KH <[email protected]> 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/[email protected]/thread/JTGV56DDADWGKU7ZKTZA4DLXTGTLNJ57/#SQMDIKBRAVDOCT4UVNOOCRGBN2UJIKHZ >> >> v2: >> >> o extend checkpatch.pl with copyleft-next as well for >> MODULE_LICENSE() check - as suggested by Paul Bolle. >> >> Cc: [email protected] >> Cc: Richard Fontana <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: Ciaran Farrell <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: Christopher De Nicolo <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]> > > Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Adding a license here implies we accept that it's actually GPLv2 compatible. And IANAL. If such-licensed code gets openly accepted into the kernel, and nobody complains, I'll send this to Linus. Not a moment before. Thanks, Rusty.
