Re: [RFC v3 00/13] linux: generalize sections, ranges and linker tables

["Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:09:07AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 15:24 +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > > table development go under copyleft-next, Rusty recently asked for 
> > > code to go in prior to the license tag being added denoting this 
> > > license as GPL-compatible [3] -- I had noted in the patch 
> > > submission which annotated copyleft-next's compatibility to GPLv2 
> > > that copyleft-next is the license of choice for ongoing kernel 
> > > development on my end [4]. If this is objectionable I'm happy to 
> > > change it to GPLv2 however I'd like a reason provided as I've gone 
> > > through all possible channels to ensure this is kosher, including
> > > vetting by 3 attorneys now, 2 at SUSE.
> > 
> > You don't need a new tag, you can use "GPL" or "GPL and additional
> > rights". In fact you don't want any other tag because when combined
> >  with the kernel it is GPLv2 anyway because the only way the two are 
> > fully compatible is for the kernel community to license the derived 
> > work under the GPL.
> 
> This is the module tag ... it says what licence the module is under,
> not the licence for the module combined with the kernel, which is
> always GPLv2 because the stricter licence rules.

As per Linus' recommendations [0] if I add a module I'll be using
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") if using copyleft-next. Either way this series
didn't add a module yet so no need for that yet, but it does use
copyleft-next in headers / C code.

[0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CA+55aFyhxcvD+q7tp+-yrSFDKfR0mOHgyEAe=f_94aKLsOu0Og@mail.gmail.com

> However, if I
> want my binary only modules to be combined with Linux, I have to follow
> GPLv2 compliance because GPLv2 becomes the ruling licence of the
> combination.  The same would apply to this copyleft-next, even after 15
> years.

And this what really matters here.

> The US copyright office defines a copyright work as anything which is
> "an original work of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of
> expression".  That means any change to an existing work (i.e. by a
> patch) which contains enough originality to make the changed work
> distinct from the old work is ipso facto a new work.  under copyright
> -next this new work has a sunset 15 years from its creation by
> combination, not 15 years from the original.  This means a constantly
> updated work never sunsets.  Sure, you can go back 15 years and claim
> the code at that time has passed into the public domain but you can't
> do that if you also want the benefit of later changes.

Agreed.

  Luis