On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 01:27:02AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
> I have done the work though, however I can understand this might mean others
> down the chain might need to burn some ink on this. Even if our position is:
>
> "we rather avoid any attorneys burning any ink and we prefer to just always
> require this 'dual or' language even for licenses which corporate attorneys
> have vetted as compatible"
>
> Wouldn't that still require a bit of ink?
What ink? As far as the Kernel is concerned, it's dual-licensed GPLv2
and copyleft-next. So for all Kernel users there isn't any lawyer ink
at all.
The lawyer ink comes from contributors being willing to let their code
contributions being dual-licensed with GPL2 plus a potentially
unfamiliar, new copyright license. But that's overhead that
contributors would have to deal with in either case. In fact, if you
try to go single-license copyleft-next, the contributors' corporate
lawyer will need to figure out the GPLv2 compatibility issue, so it's
*more* overhead with the proposed single-copyright license approach.
I'm not sure I understand what you believe to be the benefit of having
kernel modules solely licensed under copyleft-next and relying on
lawyers to say, "no really, it's GPLv2 compatible"? Could you say
more about that?
- Ted
