copyleft-next August 2016

copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org

3 participants
3 discussions

Copyleft nullification on non-free derivatives
by Engel Nyst 19 Aug '16

19 Aug '16

Hi all, I want to use copyleft-next for a particular kind of works: games. Think of those that blend content and software in most inseparable ways - such as interactive fiction and interactive movies. At least one of the games planned contains non-free pictures. It is possible for any to contain some limited amount of non-free non-software material. What will be the effect of copyleft nullification section? I assumed that nullification will strike immediately on the game as a whole work, because each new version is a derivative work of the older work, and the derivative work can't be licensed freely. Reading the section though, that doesn't seem quite right: Richard Fontana has added at some point "for a fee" to it. And there is more: it actually says "if I offer to license for a fee". "I", the licensor of the software in the game, include non-free non-software content, but "I" don't license the non-free content to anyone "for a fee" - it isn't mine to license anyway. The content licensor(s) don't offer copyleft-next in the first place. Do I get that right? Is there any way "I" would lose copyleft for such works? Thanks! -- ~ "We like to think of our forums as a Free-Speech Zone. And freedom works best at the point of a bayonet." (Amazon, Inc.)

1 0

Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)
by Luis R. Rodriguez 09 Aug '16

09 Aug '16

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

1 1

Re: Kernel modules under new copyleft licence : (was Re: [PATCH v2] module.h: add copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 as GPL compatible)
by Richard Fontana 09 Aug '16

09 Aug '16

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:04:35PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > 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). The clause that permits derived works to be licensed under the GPL is all that's needed for GPL compatibility (in the sense that combined works of GPL-licensed and copyleft-next-licensed code can be licensed under the GPL without imposition of any additional restrictions on downstream recipients). Richard

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

copyleft-next August 2016