Chase Venters wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Filip Brcic wrote:
>
>> ???? Thursday 26 January 2006 18:59, Paul Jakma ?? ???????(??):
>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>
>>>> In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the
>>>> particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you
>>>> want to license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you
>>>> have to state so explicitly. Linux never did.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's not what section 9 seems to say. The default is "any version
>>> you like".
>>
>>
>> That's right, but
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Linux specifies version GPLv2 and only v2. Therefore, for Linux the
>> GPLv2 is
>> the default.
>>
>
> Well, my understanding is that this clause wasn't always in COPYING.
> If not for section 9 of the GPL, then the default would have always
> been GPLv2 only.
>
> But since this clause was added after some time, one could argue that
> some code in Linux, even lacking a specific "or any later version"
> boilerplate, could be licensed under GPLv1, GPLv2, GPLv3, etc.
>
> However, as I stated before -- since this clause is now present, the
> hairball going to GPLv3 would be copyright holders that submitted code
> under the GPLv2 Only heading. Since Linus added this clause, and has
> no doubt joined in many others submitting code since it was added,
> portions of the kernel *are* GPLv2 Only; hence, it would be
> impractical to legally migrate to GPLv3.
>
> I'll save from weighing in on whether or not GPLv3 is a good idea --
> this is just my evaluation of the facts I see before us.
>
> Cheers,
> Chase
Linus is posturing. I can go back to numerous previous versions when he
and stallman were "buddy buddy" and the language was open
and said "any later version". Well, here's the gotcha. Any version
released before Linus said this is GPL 2, 3 or later. As of today, all new
versions are GPLv2. That's how the law works. So 2.6.15 forward is GPLv2
only. Linus cannot re-release previous Linux versions after he
already posted this NOTICE in COPYING, which he did and left the
language pen like this. So it's up to the recevier of the code whether
its GPLv2 or GPLv3 or whatever, but those releases which appeared with
COPYING stating this language are whatever GPL license you
want.
Jeff
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 09:55:14AM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Linus is posturing. I can go back to numerous previous versions when he
> and stallman were "buddy buddy" and the language was open
> and said "any later version". Well, here's the gotcha. Any version
> released before Linus said this is GPL 2, 3 or later. As of today, all new
> versions are GPLv2. That's how the law works. So 2.6.15 forward is GPLv2
> only.
Since I'm sure you seriously did your homework, I'll just assume you
mistyped "2.4.0-test8".
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=96844578906748&w=2
OG.
> Linus is posturing. I can go back to numerous previous versions when he
> and stallman were "buddy buddy" and the language was open
> and said "any later version". Well, here's the gotcha. Any version
> released before Linus said this is GPL 2, 3 or later. As of today, all new
> versions are GPLv2. That's how the law works. So 2.6.15 forward is GPLv2
> only. Linus cannot re-release previous Linux versions after he
> already posted this NOTICE in COPYING, which he did and left the
> language pen like this. So it's up to the recevier of the code whether
> its GPLv2 or GPLv3 or whatever, but those releases which appeared with
> COPYING stating this language are whatever GPL license you
> want.
>
> Jeff
Linus can't put additional restrictions on code he didn't write. If the
authors licensed it under the GPL version 2 and "any later version", Linus
can't re-release it under a more restrictive license. Read section 6
carefully:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
Notice that the code is licensed to you by the "original licensor", not by
the distributor. The inability to choose a later GPL version is definitely a
"further restriction".
At least, that's how I read it.
DS
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 06:15:54PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> Linus can't put additional restrictions on code he didn't write. If the
> authors licensed it under the GPL version 2 and "any later version", Linus
> can't re-release it under a more restrictive license. Read section 6
> carefully:
I suggest you read section 9, even more carefully. It's not an additional
restriction, it's a option that the license provides, which Linus chose.
Also read the preface of COPYING in the root directory of the kernel source.
(That has been there for a _long_ time btw).
Dave
> I suggest you read section 9, even more carefully. It's not an additional
> restriction, it's a option that the license provides, which Linus chose.
Linus can choose the license for his own code. He can also set the rules
for contributions to Linux and set up the assumed licensing terms when code
is offered for inclusion. He cannot, however, change the license on any code
he did not write. He cannot even grant a license to any code he did not
write.
From section 6, "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based
on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original
licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms
and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the
recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
The grant of license does not come from the person doing the distributing,
it comes from the original licensor, which is the original author of each
portion. The license grant is automatic, so you can't modify it or affect it
in any way.
DS
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 06:37:28PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> He cannot, however, change the license on any code he did not write.
Explain how exactly Linus is 'changing' anything ?
The license of the project is clearly stated in the top-level
of the tree.
If the person submitting code (to *any* project) doesn't read the
license that's the submitters problem, not the project maintainer.
Dave
El Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:37:28 -0800,
"David Schwartz" <[email protected]> escribi?:
> is offered for inclusion. He cannot, however, change the license on any code
> he did not write. He cannot even grant a license to any code he did not
And he's not doing it, the COPYING file applies for all the code which
doesn't specifies its own license.
Notice that COPYING has this: "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."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(IOW, people should care about their own code, but obviously people
usually licenses their code under the same license the project uses,
except some drivers that use a dual-license scheme etc)
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 18:15 -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Linus is posturing. I can go back to numerous previous versions when he
> > and stallman were "buddy buddy" and the language was open
> > and said "any later version". Well, here's the gotcha. Any version
> > released before Linus said this is GPL 2, 3 or later. As of today, all new
> > versions are GPLv2. That's how the law works. So 2.6.15 forward is GPLv2
> > only. Linus cannot re-release previous Linux versions after he
> > already posted this NOTICE in COPYING, which he did and left the
> > language pen like this. So it's up to the recevier of the code whether
> > its GPLv2 or GPLv3 or whatever, but those releases which appeared with
> > COPYING stating this language are whatever GPL license you
> > want.
> >
> > Jeff
>
> Linus can't put additional restrictions on code he didn't write. If the
> authors licensed it under the GPL version 2 and "any later version", Linus
you use the word "AND". Everyone else uses the word "OR". The word OR
means you have a choice, basically the code is dual licensed with GPLv2
and "any later version", and you can pick whichever one you want.
However if you combine it with the kernel, the v2 is chosen for you,
just by virtue of the license of the code that is v2-only. Eg: dual
licensed code in the kernel automatically picks the GPLv2 side.
If the wording was "AND", you would be right, but then both licenses
would have to apply at the same time, which gets really nasty if there
are conflicts between them (and it looks like there are)
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:15:54 PST, David Schwartz said:
> Linus can't put additional restrictions on code he didn't write. If the
> authors licensed it under the GPL version 2 and "any later version", Linus
> can't re-release it under a more restrictive license
One thing to remember is that as a *practical* matter, there are *two* sets
of copyrights attached to the code (at least under US law). Each contributor
has their rights to their code - Alan Cox has vast tracts of code, I have
a few dozen lines of bugfixes, and so on.
But equally important is the copyright that Linus has on the kernel as
a whole as a a compilation (see 17 USC 103). As a practical matter, if you
don't like Linus's license for the compilation, you're stuck with small sections
under the fair use rules. Similarly, Linus can't include anything under his
compilation unless the licenses are compatible...
Also, it means that even if you did manage to get all the copyright holders
for the code to agree to "GPL v2 or v3", Linus still holds the trump card on
the compilation.....
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 06:15:54PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> Linus can't put additional restrictions on code he didn't write. If the
> authors licensed it under the GPL version 2 and "any later version", Linus
> can't re-release it under a more restrictive license.
Yes he can. The authors licensed the code under _multiple_ licenses
(even if some do not exist yet, which can be amusing, legally), each
of the existing one(s) allowing redistribution if you accept it. He
does not have to accept _all_ of them to redistribute, _one_ of them
is enough. And none of them allow to put the code under a different
license, in contrast to say the LGPL.
OG.
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 06:15:54PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Linus can't put additional restrictions on code he didn't
> > write. If the
> > authors licensed it under the GPL version 2 and "any later
> > version", Linus
> > can't re-release it under a more restrictive license.
> Yes he can.
No. He can't.
> The authors licensed the code under _multiple_ licenses
> (even if some do not exist yet, which can be amusing, legally), each
> of the existing one(s) allowing redistribution if you accept it.
Correct. However, all the GPL-based ones grant rights *automatically* upon
distribution. "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on
the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original
licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms
and conditions"
> He
> does not have to accept _all_ of them to redistribute, _one_ of them
> is enough.
Correct. However, the recipient gets the benefit of all GPL-style licenses.
That's what clause 6 says, particularly the "automatically" part and the
"from the original licensor" part.
> And none of them allow to put the code under a different
> license, in contrast to say the LGPL.
Correct. The grant of GPL license is automatic on distribution, and it is
from the original author to the recipient.
DS
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 06:37:28PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> > He cannot, however, change the license on any code he did not write.
> Explain how exactly Linus is 'changing' anything ?
> The license of the project is clearly stated in the top-level
> of the tree.
I never said that he is or was. I said that he cannot.
> If the person submitting code (to *any* project) doesn't read the
> license that's the submitters problem, not the project maintainer.
Definitely. And I believe that you have every right to assume that code
that is submitted to you without contradictory information is submitted
under the same license as governs the project it is a contribution to.
The point is, nothing can change the license of code contributed under the
GPL except a relicense from the original author. The GPL is a special type
of license wherein you always get your license to use from the original
author. So nobody can ever change the license of any code you submit under
the GPL. This is spelled out clearly in section 6:
"Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient AUTOMATICALLY receives a license FROM THE
ORIGINAL LICENSOR to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions." (emphasis added)
So when you receive a copy of Linux, each piece of code and modification
thereto is licensed to you from its particular original author. No author or
distributor has any power to change that (other than to offer you their own
code or contributions under a different license).
DS
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 11:50:43AM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> Correct. However, all the GPL-based ones grant rights *automatically* upon
> distribution.
Of course not. The license only applies if you accept it, and you
don't have to. It's not an EULA.
OG.
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 11:50:43AM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Correct. However, all the GPL-based ones grant rights
> > *automatically* upon distribution.
> Of course not. The license only applies if you accept it, and you
> don't have to. It's not an EULA.
You are correct that the license only applies if you accept it, but you are
incorrect if you think that you can fail to accept the GPL and thus restrict
the rights of those you distribute works to under some other license.
Perhaps you're thinking that if I take a work that's dual-licensed under
the GPL and some other license, then distribute it under that other license,
the recipients don't get the GPL rights. That is not correct. GPL section 6
clearly states that the license is between the original author and the
ultimate recipient. The distributor has no say or control over this
automatic grant of license.
Section 6 clears states that this license is:
1) Automatic, not subject to anyone's discretion.
2) From the original licensor, not the distributor.
3) Under these terms and conditions, that is, the GPL.
The case is the same if you modify the work and then distribute it. All
recipients still receive GPL rights from the original authors to the
respective contributions of those authors. You cannot stop it. It is
automatic, and it is from the original authors who agreed to give GPL rights
to all recipients when they placed their works under the GPL.
DS
David Schwartz wrote:
>>On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 11:50:43AM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>Correct. However, all the GPL-based ones grant rights
>>>*automatically* upon distribution.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>Of course not. The license only applies if you accept it, and you
>>don't have to. It's not an EULA.
>>
>>
>
> You are correct that the license only applies if you accept it, but you are
>incorrect if you think that you can fail to accept the GPL and thus restrict
>the rights of those you distribute works to under some other license.
>
> Perhaps you're thinking that if I take a work that's dual-licensed under
>the GPL and some other license, then distribute it under that other license,
>the recipients don't get the GPL rights. That is not correct. GPL section 6
>clearly states that the license is between the original author and the
>ultimate recipient. The distributor has no say or control over this
>automatic grant of license.
>
> Section 6 clears states that this license is:
>
> 1) Automatic, not subject to anyone's discretion.
>
> 2) From the original licensor, not the distributor.
>
> 3) Under these terms and conditions, that is, the GPL.
>
> The case is the same if you modify the work and then distribute it. All
>recipients still receive GPL rights from the original authors to the
>respective contributions of those authors. You cannot stop it. It is
>automatic, and it is from the original authors who agreed to give GPL rights
>to all recipients when they placed their works under the GPL.
>
> DS
>
>
This language constitutes conversion and violates about a dozen laws in
a dozen states. This whole recipricol rights
grant language would have to be litigated, and I don't think anyone will
know the outcome. I think it would end up
with the Judge saying "You guys take your stuff and go, and you GPL
people take your stuff and go, and neither one of
you can distribute the others IP".
Jeff
Hi David!
On 27 Jan 2006, at 03:15, David Schwartz wrote:
>
>> Linus is posturing. I can go back to numerous previous versions
>> when he
>> and stallman were "buddy buddy" and the language was open
>> and said "any later version". Well, here's the gotcha. Any version
>> released before Linus said this is GPL 2, 3 or later. As of today,
>> all new
>> versions are GPLv2. That's how the law works. So 2.6.15 forward is
>> GPLv2
>> only. Linus cannot re-release previous Linux versions after he
>> already posted this NOTICE in COPYING, which he did and left the
>> language pen like this. So it's up to the recevier of the code
>> whether
>> its GPLv2 or GPLv3 or whatever, but those releases which appeared
>> with
>> COPYING stating this language are whatever GPL license you
>> want.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> Linus can't put additional restrictions on code he didn't write.
> If the
> authors licensed it under the GPL version 2 and "any later
> version", Linus
> can't re-release it under a more restrictive license. Read section 6
> carefully:
>
> 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
> Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
> original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
> these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
> restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
> You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
> this License.
>
> Notice that the code is licensed to you by the "original
> licensor", not by
> the distributor. The inability to choose a later GPL version is
> definitely a
> "further restriction".
>
> At least, that's how I read it.
Excuse my ignorant jumping into this thread. Correct me if I'm wrong:
Linus takes code provided by others under "GPLv2 or any later
version" and decides to comply to the rules of v2, which allow him to
distribute the work under v2 only. Incidentally v2 is also the less
strict than v3, so all Linus does is take the greatest freedom he is
offered (and pass it on, of course).
The problem would start only if someone insisted on GPLv3 for his/her
code and wanted to get it merged in Linus' tree. I think the only one
to clarify this point is Linus, and he has already done so.
Ciao,
Roland
--
TU Muenchen, Physik-Department E18, James-Franck-Str., 85748 Garching
Telefon 089/289-12575; Telefax 089/289-12570
--
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that
would also stop you from doing clever things.
-Doug Gwyn
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GS/CS/M/MU d-(++) s:+ a-> C+++ UL++++ P+++ L+++ E(+) W+ !N K- w--- M
+ !V Y+
PGP++ t+(++) 5 R+ tv-- b+ DI++ e+++>++++ h---- y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------