On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:15:54 PST, David Schwartz said: > Linus can't put additional restrictions on code he didn't write. If the > authors licensed it under the GPL version 2 and "any later version", Linus > can't re-release it under a more restrictive license One thing to remember is that as a *practical* matter, there are *two* sets of copyrights attached to the code (at least under US law). Each contributor has their rights to their code - Alan Cox has vast tracts of code, I have a few dozen lines of bugfixes, and so on. But equally important is the copyright that Linus has on the kernel as a whole as a a compilation (see 17 USC 103). As a practical matter, if you don't like Linus's license for the compilation, you're stuck with small sections under the fair use rules. Similarly, Linus can't include anything under his compilation unless the licenses are compatible... Also, it means that even if you did manage to get all the copyright holders for the code to agree to "GPL v2 or v3", Linus still holds the trump card on the compilation.....
Attachment:
pgpoCfLrjzQZF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- RE: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
- From: "David Schwartz" <[email protected]>
- RE: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
- Prev by Date: Re: pthread_mutex_unlock (was Re: sched_yield() makes OpenLDAP slow)
- Next by Date: Re: USB host pci-quirks
- Previous by thread: RE: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
- Next by thread: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
- Index(es):
 |