copyleft-next July 2016

copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org

4 participants
4 discussions

Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible
by Luis R. Rodriguez 21 Jul '16

21 Jul '16

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 03:38:51PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:56:33PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > > Greg KH <gregkh(a)linuxfoundation.org> writes: > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 03:53:27PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > >> copyleft-next [0] [1] is an openly evolved copyleft license, its an > > >> effort to evolve copyleft without participation of the Church (TM) > > >> or State (R), completley openly to the extend development and > > >> discussion of copyleft-next by participants of the copyleft-next > > >> project are governed by the Harvey Birdman Rule [2]. > > >> > > >> Even though it has been a goal of the project to be GPL-v2 compatible > > >> to be certain I've asked for a clarification about what makes > > >> copyleft-next GPLv2 compatible and also asked for a summary of > > >> benefits. This prompted some small minor changes to make compatiblity > > >> even further clear and as of copyleft 0.3.1 compatibility should > > >> be crystal clear [3]. > > >> > > >> The summary of why copyleft-next 0.3.1 is compatible with GPLv2 > > >> is explained as follows: > > >> > > >> Like GPLv2, copyleft-next requires distribution of derivative works > > >> ("Derived Works" in copyleft-next 0.3.x) to be under the same license. > > >> Ordinarily this would make the two licenses incompatible. However, > > >> copyleft-next 0.3.1 says: "If the Derived Work includes material > > >> licensed under the GPL, You may instead license the Derived Work under > > >> the GPL." "GPL" is defined to include GPLv2. > > >> > > >> In practice this means copyleft-next code in Linux may be licensed > > >> under the GPL2, however there are additional obvious gains for > > >> bringing contributins from Linux outbound where copyleft-next is > > >> preferred. To help review further I've also independently reviewed > > >> compatiblity with attorneys at SUSE and they agree with the > > >> compatibility. > > >> > > >> A summary of benefits of copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 over GPLv2 is listed > > >> below, it shows *why* some folks like myself will prefer it over > > >> GPLv2 for future work. > > >> > > >> o It is much shorter and simpler > > >> o It has an explicit patent license grant, unlike GPLv2 > > >> o Its notice preservation conditions are clearer > > >> o More free software/open source licenses are compatible > > >> with it (via section 4) > > >> o The source code requirement triggered by binary distribution > > >> is much simpler in a procedural sense > > >> o Recipients potentially have a contract claim against distributors > > >> who are noncompliant with the source code requirement > > >> o There is a built-in inbound=outbound policy for upstream > > >> contributions (cf. Apache License 2.0 section 5) > > >> o There are disincentives to engage in the controversial practice > > >> of copyleft/ proprietary dual-licensing > > >> o In 15 years copyleft expires, which can be advantageous > > >> for legacy code > > >> o There are explicit disincentives to bringing patent infringement > > >> claims accusing the licensed work of infringement (see 10b) > > >> o There is a cure period for licensees who are not compliant > > >> with the license (there is no cure opportunity in GPLv2) > > >> o copyleft-next has a 'built-in or-later' provision > > >> > > >> [0] https://github.com/copyleft-next/copyleft-next > > >> [1] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/copyleft-next/ > > >> [2] https://github.com/richardfontana/hbr/blob/master/HBR.md > > >> [3] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/copyleft-next@lists.fedorahost… > > >> > > >> v2: > > >> > > >> o extend checkpatch.pl with copyleft-next as well for > > >> MODULE_LICENSE() check - as suggested by Paul Bolle. > > >> > > >> Cc: copyleft-next(a)lists.fedorahosted.org > > >> Cc: Richard Fontana <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> > > >> Signed-off-by: Ciaran Farrell <Ciaran.Farrell(a)suse.com> > > >> Signed-off-by: Christopher De Nicolo <Christopher.DeNicolo(a)suse.com> > > >> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof(a)kernel.org> > > > > > > Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh(a)linuxfoundation.org> > > > > Adding a license here implies we accept that it's actually GPLv2 > > compatible. And IANAL. > > Note, at least lawyer has signed off on this. Clarification: *2 lawyers* at SUSE had Signed-off on this already. > I'd like to see Richard do so as well. With Richard that's 3 attorneys now. 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. Luis

1 0

Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible
by Richard Fontana 19 Jul '16

19 Jul '16

On 07/19/2016 06:38 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:56:33PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: >> Greg KH <gregkh(a)linuxfoundation.org> writes: >>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 03:53:27PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>>> copyleft-next [0] [1] is an openly evolved copyleft license, its an >>>> effort to evolve copyleft without participation of the Church (TM) >>>> or State (R), completley openly to the extend development and >>>> discussion of copyleft-next by participants of the copyleft-next >>>> project are governed by the Harvey Birdman Rule [2]. >>>> >>>> Even though it has been a goal of the project to be GPL-v2 compatible >>>> to be certain I've asked for a clarification about what makes >>>> copyleft-next GPLv2 compatible and also asked for a summary of >>>> benefits. This prompted some small minor changes to make compatiblity >>>> even further clear and as of copyleft 0.3.1 compatibility should >>>> be crystal clear [3]. >>>> >>>> The summary of why copyleft-next 0.3.1 is compatible with GPLv2 >>>> is explained as follows: >>>> >>>> Like GPLv2, copyleft-next requires distribution of derivative works >>>> ("Derived Works" in copyleft-next 0.3.x) to be under the same license. >>>> Ordinarily this would make the two licenses incompatible. However, >>>> copyleft-next 0.3.1 says: "If the Derived Work includes material >>>> licensed under the GPL, You may instead license the Derived Work under >>>> the GPL." "GPL" is defined to include GPLv2. >>>> >>>> In practice this means copyleft-next code in Linux may be licensed >>>> under the GPL2, however there are additional obvious gains for >>>> bringing contributins from Linux outbound where copyleft-next is >>>> preferred. To help review further I've also independently reviewed >>>> compatiblity with attorneys at SUSE and they agree with the >>>> compatibility. >>>> >>>> A summary of benefits of copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 over GPLv2 is listed >>>> below, it shows *why* some folks like myself will prefer it over >>>> GPLv2 for future work. >>>> >>>> o It is much shorter and simpler >>>> o It has an explicit patent license grant, unlike GPLv2 >>>> o Its notice preservation conditions are clearer >>>> o More free software/open source licenses are compatible >>>> with it (via section 4) >>>> o The source code requirement triggered by binary distribution >>>> is much simpler in a procedural sense >>>> o Recipients potentially have a contract claim against distributors >>>> who are noncompliant with the source code requirement >>>> o There is a built-in inbound=outbound policy for upstream >>>> contributions (cf. Apache License 2.0 section 5) >>>> o There are disincentives to engage in the controversial practice >>>> of copyleft/ proprietary dual-licensing >>>> o In 15 years copyleft expires, which can be advantageous >>>> for legacy code >>>> o There are explicit disincentives to bringing patent infringement >>>> claims accusing the licensed work of infringement (see 10b) >>>> o There is a cure period for licensees who are not compliant >>>> with the license (there is no cure opportunity in GPLv2) >>>> o copyleft-next has a 'built-in or-later' provision >>>> >>>> [0] https://github.com/copyleft-next/copyleft-next >>>> [1] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/copyleft-next/ >>>> [2] https://github.com/richardfontana/hbr/blob/master/HBR.md >>>> [3] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/copyleft-next@lists.fedorahost… >>>> >>>> v2: >>>> >>>> o extend checkpatch.pl with copyleft-next as well for >>>> MODULE_LICENSE() check - as suggested by Paul Bolle. >>>> >>>> Cc: copyleft-next(a)lists.fedorahosted.org >>>> Cc: Richard Fontana <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ciaran Farrell <Ciaran.Farrell(a)suse.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Christopher De Nicolo <Christopher.DeNicolo(a)suse.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof(a)kernel.org> >>> >>> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh(a)linuxfoundation.org> >> >> Adding a license here implies we accept that it's actually GPLv2 >> compatible. And IANAL. > > Note, at least lawyer has signed off on this. > > I'd like to see Richard do so as well. Signed-off-by: Richard Fontana <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org>

1 0

Using copyleft-next on license by file approach
by Luis R. Rodriguez 08 Jul '16

08 Jul '16

I had licensed CRDA under copyleft-next years ago, that project had a LICENSE file though, no other files had any copyright mention. Nice and clean. With larger projects though, for instance the Linux kernel, files are licensed on their own, license-by-file if you will. SUSE attorneys have agreed with coplyeft-next being GPLv2 compatible, based on this I recently proposed an amendment upstream for Linux [0] [1] [2] to include copyleft-next as a possible license we can use as developers. Given the listed gains of using copyleft-next over GPLv2 described in that patch, if this patch gets accepted upstream copyleft-next is going to be my license of choice for new code moving forward in the Linux kernel and as such I would like to ask for suggestions as what to do about the copyright license header used. To start off with, we know one gain of having something under copyleft-next on the kernel, even though GPLv2 would apply there, would be that I can then changes made to files there downstream to other existing copyleft-next licensed projects. So for instance I could take some Linux kernel copyleft-next code and include it under copyleft-next to some userspace copyleft-next licensed code. Such an example applies to CRDA, but use of that is far, given firmware signing support on the kernel still has a long series of other changes that are needed first, such as the new sysdata API I'm proposing [3]. As another more closer tangible example, I had licensed some new userspace code I've been working on as a prototype which ultimately I'm targeting upstream on the Linux kernel on under GPLv2, but given the current agreement on compatibility I've decided I prefer copyleft-next as well, so just today I've relicensed that project, the prototype userspace linker-table work [4], under copyleft-next. There'a few things to address if license-by-file method is used. To start off with (refer to my change [5] as an example on the linker table tree): a) Do we *really* need to include the full copy of copyleft-next-0.3.1 upstream on a project if its going to use it? I've done that on my userspace prototype for linker-tables, but would that eventually be needed upstream on Linux as well ? b) What should the license-by-file text look like? I currently have: * Linux linker tables * * Copyright (C) 2015-2016 Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof(a)kernel.org> * * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 license as published * online and available at the following URL: * * https://github.com/copyleft-next/copyleft-next Just to try to match the GPLv2 traditional header. Is an alternative preferred ? This implicitly tries to avoid referring to a "file" that has the license, and instead refers to the upstream URL. c) I've kept the scary disclaimer as I borrowed it from include/linux/security.h from the Linux kernel, modulo I replaced "GPL" with "copyleft-next" to indicate the license the file is licensed under: * Due to this file being licensed under coplyleft-next there is controversy * over whether this permits you to write a module that #includes this file * without placing your module under the GPL. Please consult a lawyer for * advice before doing this. However I am not sure if I should just avoid this. My thought was that since GPLv2 applies upstream on the kernel I think its fair to keep it. [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=1465929370217… [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=146592937021726 [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9176475/ [3] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1466121559-22363-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.o… [4] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linker-tables.git/ [5] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linker-tables.git/commi… Luis

4 9

[PATCH] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible
by Luis R. Rodriguez 01 Jul '16

01 Jul '16

copyleft-next [0] [1] is an openly evolved copyleft license, its an effort to evolve copyleft without participation of the Church (TM) or State (R), completley openly to the extend development and discussion of copyleft-next by participants of the copyleft-next project are governed by the Harvey Birdman Rule [2]. Even though it has been a goal of the project to be GPL-v2 compatible to be certain I've asked for a clarification about what makes copyleft-next GPLv2 compatible and also asked for a summary of benefits. This prompted some small minor changes to make compatiblity even further clear and as of copyleft 0.3.1 compatibility should be crystal clear [3]. The summary of why copyleft-next 0.3.1 is compatible with GPLv2 is explained as follows: Like GPLv2, copyleft-next requires distribution of derivative works ("Derived Works" in copyleft-next 0.3.x) to be under the same license. Ordinarily this would make the two licenses incompatible. However, copyleft-next 0.3.1 says: "If the Derived Work includes material licensed under the GPL, You may instead license the Derived Work under the GPL." "GPL" is defined to include GPLv2. In practice this means copyleft-next code in Linux may be licensed under the GPL2, however there are additional obvious gains for bringing contributins from Linux outbound where copyleft-next is preferred. To help review further I've also independently reviewed compatiblity with attorneys at SUSE and they agree with the compatibility. A summary of benefits of copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 over GPLv2 is listed below, it shows *why* some folks like myself will prefer it over GPLv2 for future work. o It is much shorter and simpler o It has an explicit patent license grant, unlike GPLv2 o Its notice preservation conditions are clearer o More free software/open source licenses are compatible with it (via section 4) o The source code requirement triggered by binary distribution is much simpler in a procedural sense o Recipients potentially have a contract claim against distributors who are noncompliant with the source code requirement o There is a built-in inbound=outbound policy for upstream contributions (cf. Apache License 2.0 section 5) o There are disincentives to engage in the controversial practice of copyleft/ proprietary dual-licensing o In 15 years copyleft expires, which can be advantageous for legacy code o There are explicit disincentives to bringing patent infringement claims accusing the licensed work of infringement (see 10b) o There is a cure period for licensees who are not compliant with the license (there is no cure opportunity in GPLv2) o copyleft-next has a 'built-in or-later' provision [0] https://github.com/copyleft-next/copyleft-next [1] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/copyleft-next/ [2] https://github.com/richardfontana/hbr/blob/master/HBR.md [3] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/copyleft-next@lists.fedorahost… Cc: copyleft-next(a)lists.fedorahosted.org Cc: Richard Fontana <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> Signed-off-by: Ciaran Farrell <Ciaran.Farrell(a)suse.com> Signed-off-by: Christopher De Nicolo <Christopher.DeNicolo(a)suse.com> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof(a)kernel.org> --- I've tested its use at run time as well obviously. include/linux/license.h | 1 + include/linux/module.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/include/linux/license.h b/include/linux/license.h index decdbf43cb5c..ed7c13a6b556 100644 --- a/include/linux/license.h +++ b/include/linux/license.h @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ static inline int license_is_gpl_compatible(const char *license) { return (strcmp(license, "GPL") == 0 || strcmp(license, "GPL v2") == 0 + || strcmp(license, "copyleft-next") == 0 || strcmp(license, "GPL and additional rights") == 0 || strcmp(license, "Dual BSD/GPL") == 0 || strcmp(license, "Dual MIT/GPL") == 0 diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h index f777164c238b..24c520ff62e1 100644 --- a/include/linux/module.h +++ b/include/linux/module.h @@ -182,6 +182,7 @@ void trim_init_extable(struct module *m); * The following license idents are currently accepted as indicating free * software modules * + * "copyleft-next" [copyleft-next 0.3.1 or later] * "GPL" [GNU Public License v2 or later] * "GPL v2" [GNU Public License v2] * "GPL and additional rights" [GNU Public License v2 rights and more] -- 2.8.2

4 14

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

copyleft-next July 2016