On Maw, 2006-01-31 at 11:07 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> granted to you, so nobody has _ever_ had rights to re-license Linux under
> any other license than the one it came with: namely the GPLv2. Alan is
> trying to argue that the fact that it has been licensed under the GPLv2
> would somehow "magically" mean that it has been licensed under any version
> of GPL that you can pick, BUT THAT IS AN OBVIOUSLY LEGALLY FLAWED
> ARGUMENT.
Clause 9 is clear and is part of the GPL v2. The GPL v2 text gives
people (including you) that right itself if no version is specified in
the program. You and the other authors granted that right if you didn't
include a statement about version. Now as it happens various
contributors specified versions long ago and you clarified it too.
> Alan - talk to a lawyer.
Actually I did, long ago before this argument even appeared, because it
was important for another situation.
Also please get one thing straight. I'm not arguing for a license
change, I'm pointing out misunderstandings that might lead people,
particularly other GPL projects to make mistakes.
The big problem with any license change is actually the moral one, as
I'm sure you'd agree: Do you have the moral right to change the rules
(eg on DRM) when many have contributed with many differing views and in
many ways not all of them leading to them being copyright holders ?
Alan
-
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]
