# Re: \[PATCH 0/2\] LICENSES: add and use copyleft-next-0.3.1

- From: Luis Chamberlain \<mcgrof@kernel.org\>
- Date: 2021-07-08 19:37:54 
- List: linux-block
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-block/2021/07/1436685
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-block/2021/07/1435897/t.md

```text
On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 03:01:58PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 10:52:54 -0700
> "Bradley M. Kuhn" [ref] wrote:
> 
> > Joe Perches wrote:
> > >>> You can ask but it's the submitter's choice to license their code however
> > >>> they desire.  
> > 
> > … to which I'd add, as long as the license is GPLv2-only-compatible, which of
> > course (GPLv2-only|copyleft-next) is.
> 
> I agree with Joe on this, but I have to ask; What happens when someone
> makes a change to this file? The default kernel license is GPL-v2. Does this
> change automatically become the same as the file itself, or is the new
> change under the dual license?
> 
> I've made changes to code that had a dual license that wasn't GPL
> compatible, and the company involved asked me to sign off on the other
> license (which I did).

The Signed-off-by tag implies you are making a contribution under the
same license as the license file states. The more people are aware of
this fact, the better, and its then why we made DCO a public thing and
now other projects embrace it.

  Luis
```