From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753531AbdESLcD (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 May 2017 07:32:03 -0400 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:34718 "EHLO mga06.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751109AbdESLcB (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 May 2017 07:32:01 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,363,1491289200"; d="scan'208";a="102981046" Message-ID: <1495193510.7848.101.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [copyleft-next] Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible) From: Alan Cox To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , "Theodore Ts'o" , Linus Torvalds , AKASHI Takahiro , Greg KH , Rusty Russell , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ciaran.farrell@suse.com, christopher.denicolo@suse.com, fontana@sharpeleven.org, copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org, One Thousand Gnomes , Paul Bolle , Peter Anvin , Joe Perches Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 12:31:50 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20170518230442.GC8951@wotan.suse.de> References: <20160722000747.GD5537@wotan.suse.de> <1470773075.12035.12.camel@linux.intel.com> <20160809201448.GE3296@wotan.suse.de> <20170511180211.GW28800@wotan.suse.de> <1494861494.7848.41.camel@linux.intel.com> <20170516232702.GL17314@wotan.suse.de> <20170517165502.b6jqdcmkgz6iyau2@thunk.org> <20170517174128.GQ17314@wotan.suse.de> <20170518221205.gcfs2t4ihlpx5kj6@thunk.org> <20170518230442.GC8951@wotan.suse.de> Organization: Intel Corporation Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > 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. > project. Since Linux *has* that macro though -- I think it is also > also > sufficiently clear that the license that applies when copyleft-next > is > used on Linux is GPLv2. Show me the caselaw. You'll note that the people concerned about this are people who work for large companies and spend our time dealing with lawyers. This is based upon experience (sometimes painful) not on theory. Alan