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.
Outside of the "derivative work" GPL clause they don't quite look compatible to me as a non-lawyer (eg the definition of "source code" looks to differ on scripts etc).
Up to the attorneys then.
Luis