On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 05:09:20PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:31:50PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: >> > > 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. >> > >> > Because their job is to protect their whomsoever they represent. They >> > protect them drawing upon case law and providing rules based upon >> > caselaw so that people don't have to keep bothering them. >> > >> > The lawyers have caselaw for "either a or b" licensing. They don't have >> > caselaw for licence compatibility with your licence. Therefore it's a >> > risk. >> >> Alright, this makes sense. >> >> As noted though there are a few "or" clauses, which upstream file >> is a good template to use for copyleft-next ? > > There seems to be a few "or" clauses. For instance: > > a) you can pick either license [0] > b) gpl on Linux, otherwise this other license below [1] > > To help uplift copyleft will go with b). > > [0] drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/driver.c > [1] drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
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 following license: * * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it * under the terms of copyleft-next (version 0.3.1 or later) as published * at http://copyleft-next.org/. If there are issue please let me know. Luis
