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
