RE: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders

["David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>]

> Well ok, but modified copies of it (that aren't the license) could be
> made. For the sake of argument, imaging copying the preamble into
> another file and adding a few paragraphs there, with a prominent notice of
> your modifications. This is allowed by the GPL (the License is the same,
> and you're not violating the other terms either as far as I can see). But
> it is not allowed by the license for the text of the GPL. Hence the
> problem. It's an odd squirrelly corner case of the sort that
> cause licenses
> to bloat up with verbiage.

	I totally don't understand why anyone thinks this is a problem. The GPL
restricts copying and modification in various ways. One of them is that you
can't modify the GPL itself. Another is that you can't remove license
notices or disclaimers of liability.

	There is no problem and there is no conflict. The GPL is licensed under the
GPL, it's self-licensing. The GPL specifies the terms of use for the works
covered by it, including the GPL itself.

	The GPL is not GPL-incompatible because something can only be
GPL-incompatible if it contains restrictions not found in the GPL. It is
logically impossible for the GPL to do so.

	DS


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/