Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
I did _not_ put that language in, which is the whole point.
If you can provide this beyond all doubt, then I agree you have a solid
basis to object.
It's really easy to prove.
Look at core kernel source code today, and look at it 10 years ago. Look
at it 15 years ago. Nothing has changed.
The really core files have copyright notices like this:
/*
* kernel/sched.c
*
* Kernel scheduler and related syscalls
*
* Copyright (C) 1991-2002 Linus Torvalds
...
with absolutely no mention of any license rights at all. Not "this is
under the GPL", not "GPLv2 or later". The _only_ license rights anybody
ever had to those files come from the COPYING file, which very clearly
states that it's "version 2, 1991"
(And yes, I'm a lazy bastard. I don't update the years. Some of the files
I wrote still say "1991, 1992" even though they've obviously been edited
since by me. If they fall into the public domain a couple of years
earlier, I really don't see myself caring, since I will have been dead for
a long while by that time _anyway_, judging by the current copyright
nonsense).
[ Side note: the _core_ kernel files are more universally GPL v2-only than
the rest of the kernel. So for example, while almost a third of all C
files have the "any later version" notice in them, when you look at just
the core files in kernel/ mm/ fs/, it's a _lot_ less rare. For example,
in fs/*.c, it's only two files out of 57, and those aren't even the most
core files.
So _qualitatively_, a lot more than "just" two thirds of the kernel are
based on my core files, and are GPLv2 _only_. The "..any later version"
stuff tends to exist mostly in drivers (and some filesystems: 9pfs,
afs, autofs, cifs, jfs, ntfs, ocfs2 have the "any later version" in
them, but the most common ones do not, and are often derived
(admittedly very indirectly, by now) from my original code. ]
OK. This one might make it.
However, it being there does make the whole arguments
nebulous. I would suggest removing any such language from kernel.org and
state GPLv2 ONLY.
The COPYING file was edited (over _five_ years ago) to clarify the issue,
exactly because some people were confused. So the COPYING file now
explicitly says:
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
and that has been the case for the last 5+ years.
(Another clarification is even older: the clarification that using "normal
system calls" is _not_ considered linking, and thus the GPL doesn't infect
any normal user-level programs. That one is over ten years old, since some
people seriously worried about it. Again, it was really pretty obvious
from the license itself, but the clarification made the question stop and
made some people stop worrying unnecessarily).
Alan argues that that extra notice "changed" the license (and that any
code that is older than 5 years would somehow not be GPLv2). I argue
otherwise. I argue that for the whole history, Linux has been v2-only
unless otherwise explicitly specified.
And I don't think even Alan will argue that the "v2 only" thing hasn't
been true for the last five years.
Got it. Agreed. There was a COPYING file inside the tar.gz (you need to
check this one)
I recall seeing but I think it was 2.4 and some header files that still
said this -- better clean those up.
I was also under the impression based on the language "any later license"
and I am a very bright chap. So if I got it wrong, then imagine how many other
folks are likely to be confused.
Exactly. That's why I added the clarification on top of the COPYING file:
people _have_ been confused.
That confusion doesn't stem from Linux, btw, but from the FSF distribution
of the GPLv2 license itself. The license is distributed as one single
file, which actually contains three parts: (1) the "preamble", (2) the
actual license itself and (3) the "How to Apply These Terms to Your New
Programs" mini-FAQ.
And that third part actually contains the wording "(at your option) any
later version.",
Take this out of the GPL license. It's granting as a term of the license
the ability to
adopt later versions. An obvious loophole -- modify the license text and
state
LINE NUMBER AND PARAGRAPH that this language DOES NOT APPLY
and BE SPECIFIC in your explanation. If it's not numbered in the GPL
text, number
it so you can make it CLEAR.
but a lot of people seemed to not realize that this was
just part of a FSF-suggested boiler-plate on what to put in your source
files. In other words, that was never actually part of the license
itself, but just a "btw, here's how you should use it" post-script.
A lot of people seemed to be confused by that, and this is exactly why the
Linux COPYING file got the additional explanation.
(Side note: from a legal standpoint, "intent" does actually matter in the
US legal system. So the FSF can actually argue that their pre-amble and
their post-script to the license carry legal weight, because it shows
their _intent_. However, they can only argue that for programs that they
own copyright to, or when the license itself might be unclear - they can't
argue that it shows _my_ intent. I've made my intent very clear over the
years, and I've been consistent on this matter, so nobody can claim that
I've "changed the rules").
Alan is trying to help you. I have never seen him do anything other than
support you to the hilt. Sure, disagreements happen, but he is there for
you and Linux and has been from day one.
Absolutely. And I actually try to be very open to changing my mind if
somebody has a valid point. Open source is absolutely not about just the
source code - it's very much about the process, and about (mostly the lack
of) control.
And hey, Alan tends to be mostly right in his concerns. Which is why he's
so respected in the community. I just think that he is off the deep end on
this one, and I have yet to see any actual convincing arguments for his
standpoint.
Alan is awesome -- period.
Linus, remove all nebulous language and post a notice on kernel.org
clarifying your position on this code, and I think the issue becomes
closed.
The thing is, even the _clarification_ HAS BEEN THERE FOR 5 YEARS. At the
very top of the COPYING file.
CITE REFERENCES. Number the GPL and Cite where it is invalid.
This really is nothing new. How much more prominent can it be than be in
the top-level COPYING file that gets distributed with every single kernel
version?
Because let's face it, the burden on proof on changing the kernel license is
on _Alan_, not me. Alan is the one arguing for change.
A change to GPLv3 would be a good thing for you.
A lot of people like the GPLv3. I personally don't _dislike_ the current
draft, but I don't think it's appropriate for the kernel. Part of why I
liked the GPL in the first place (v2 at that point, obviously - v3 hadn't
even been thought about) was that it put no restrictions at all on the
_use_ of binaries.
So I actually prefer the GPLv2. I don't think the current GPLv3 draft is
"evil" or "bad", or anything like that, but it's not the license I would
have selected when I started, and I don't see any reason to change to it
for the kernel.
Lets see where it goes. It protects the end users and gives them the
freedom to combine
GPL and non-GPL stuff, which is great.
Jeff
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
