Bernd Paysan <[email protected]> writes:
> I want to add my two cents on what I think the legal status of the
> individual contributions to Linux are. The thing in question is not the
> GPLv2 itself (which is pretty clear that code without explicit statements
> is under "any",
That's not exactly true. A work without explicit statements is not
licenced at all.
> This particular comment to how the GPL is applied to the Linux kernel
> therefore doesn't change the GPL as such
Of course.
> Again: What Linus is entitled to do is to *select* the license under which
> he redistributes the code downstream.
Sure.
> The GPLv2 however is very clear how the end user gets the license: from the
> original author.
I'd be surprised if it's for GPL to decide.
> Not from the man in the middle, from a distributor or
> kernel maintainer, who can neither add nor drop restrictions/permissions
> (and thus the special rights of a compilation editor are void). The author
> can only speak for himself, not by behalf of somebody else, as well as the
> compilation editor.
How about derived works?
Am I free to get BSD source, incorporate it in GPL project, and release
the whole under GPL?
Sure, the original source stays BSD but I don't distribute it.
> That's why the FSF is so strict about having each
> author stating copyright and the license conditions on the top of the
> file - nobody else can.
I'm not sure the copyright laws define "files".
> So my conclusion is: If you, as contributor to the Linux kernel, want to
> make clear that your work really is GPLv2 only, you have to do that
> yourself, you have to add a notice like above to files where you
> exclusively own copyright.
I don't think the law works like that.
By default you have no rights to someone's work (file or project).
The only licence I can find with Linux is GPL v2, isn't it? And even
that wasn't stated explicite until that 2.4.0something (though there
is a consensus that the COPYING file was indeed a licence for the
whole kernel).
Then you may have additional rights, such as those given in various
source files.
> The rest (the majority) did not
> choose to say anything, which under the GPL regime means "any";
What exactly is the "GPL regime" and how is it defined by copyright
law and/or the GPL licence itself (or will of copyright holders etc.)?
--
Krzysztof Halasa
-
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]
