On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 10:14:48PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:04:35PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > (Going back to pick up the specific licence thread)
> >
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to see Richard do so as well.
> > > With Richard that's 3 attorneys now.
> >
> > None of whom I believe represent the Linux project or foundation ?
> >
> > Linus has to make this call, nobody else and he is probablygoing to go
> > ape if you try and sneak another licence into the kernel without
> > flagging it up with him clearly first. You need to discuss it with
> > Linus up front.
>
> To be clear I first poked the Linux Foundation about this, I went through the
> process recommended by them. If there is a process out of place its by no
> means an issue on my end.
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > We have the GPL/extra rights tag for this already. Also when it's
> > merged with the kernel we'd I'm sure pick the derivative work under the
> > GPL option so we'd only need the GPL tag.
> >
> > There are specific reasons for the extra rights language - it avoids
> > games like MODULE_LICENSE("BSD") and then giving people just a binary
> > and it being counted as GPL compliant activity. The same problem exists
> > in your licence post sunset. That single tag is also why we don't have
> > to list BSD, MIT, and every variant thereof in the table which saves us
> > so much pain. If you must have the actual text in the .ko file then put
> > it in your MODULE_DESCRIPTION().
>
> I'm personally fine with MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") being used with copyleft-next
> code
> and find it sensible.
Adding Linus now, for some reason I think you added him with an incorrect
domain name, Alan.
Luis
