On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 14:21, Ian Malone wrote: > > > > That would be an interesting challenge. Does the modification > > that Linus added to the copyright have the same weight as > > the GPL in applying to everything subsequently added? I > > don't see how it could be otherwise. If the GPL can take > > away your choice of subsequent copyright terms, a modified GPL > > must be able to do the same. So, to whatever extent the GPL > > is valid, Linus can and did grant rights to any code distributed > > in the work as a whole - which was defined not to include things > > on the other side of the module interface but does include your > > code. Even if he changed his mind about the issue later, the > > terms could only be changed if all copyright holders agreed. > > > > ? The code is covered by GPL 2. Beg your pardon, but the COPYING file included with the last kernel source I saw (admittedly a 2.4.x...) was not the same as a stock GPL 2 and points out that programs that interface with kernel system calls are not derived works. > If something ever goes to court > and it depends on the interpretation of a particular section > then (in Britain at least), the court has to try and determine > what the involved parts thought they were agreeing to. > If Linus has a statement out there about his interpretation of > the GPL that counts for something. It doesn't modify the GPL, > the way it affects other contributors is that they now know > something about Linus's interpretation of the agreement between > them, which should affect their interpretation of the license. There is some waffle-room about whether modules interface with system calls or not. His early interpretation - and probably the motivation for making the interface modular in the first place - was that modules were not part of the kernel. > But a statement by Linus can't alter the actual details of the > GPL any more than if he woke up tomorrow and decided the kernel > should be BSD licensed; as you say the terms can only be changed > if all the copyright holders agree (or if contributions from > those who don't are omitted). Linus could have applied any copyright he wanted, and what he did apply was a modified version of the GPL which I agree can't be altered now. He did not modify the part that says that you have no choice about having that copyright apply to subsequent derived works, which would be anything actually included in the kernel. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
