MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1368918189923.dd7325ed@Nodemailer>
References: <CAPweEDxgT+ZygfPZDd8YePe7RurTU7o_UtiBqjUvCMimChpTug@mail.gmail.com>
	<1368918189923.dd7325ed@Nodemailer>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 11:39:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPweEDwYm6iQ1vJ_UwAC5pE-uwfnMDHR6wJ1VppW1wakmTMJGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Would like to form a pool of Linux copyright holders for faster
 GPL enforcement against Anthrax Kernels
From: "luke.leighton" <luke.leighton@gmail.com>
To: Cole Johnson <coleharrisjohnson@gmail.com>
Cc: legal@lists.gpl-violations.org, Eric Appleman <erappleman@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2418
Lines: 56

On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Cole Johnson
<coleharrisjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> question: what is the procedure for having that licensing explicitly
>
> added to the linux kernel sources?
>
> IIRC Linus said he will NOT use the GPLv3 for the kernel.

 mr linus torvalds is one person.  he is not a god.  he does not
dictate that which everyone else can choose to do.  if mr linus
torvalds is telling everyone "he will not use the GPLv3 for the
kernel" i.e. NOBODY may dual-license their copyright material in the
linux kernel then he is *MASSIVELY* overstepping a serious boundary of
both propriety and copyright law.  if i choose to release all
copyright code under dual licenses then THAT IS MY RIGHT AND NO FUCKER
IS GOING TO TELL ME OTHERWISE.

 so, let's nip this in the bud and set it straight, ok?

 i assume that what mr linus torvalds *meant* to say was "i have some
code, it is under my copyright.  i personally choose not to release
that copyright material under any license other than the GPLv2 and
that is my choice and my right as the owner of that copyright
material.  signed, mr linus torvalds".

 that choice - made by mr linus torvalds - has *nothing to do with
anybody else's choice*.

 so the question remains, and i'd like an answer: what is the
procedure for formally adding to the linux kernel that my copyrighted
material is dual-licensed under both the GPLv2 and the GPLv3+?  do i
submit a patch, and is it as simple as that?

 unless.... unless what mr linus torvalds meant to say was, "i don't
like the GPLv3+ license.  if any fucker wants to release linux kernel
code under the GPLv3+ (as well as the GPLv2), they can fuck off.  in
fact, they will be banned from submitting contributions that are not
specifically GPLv2.  if they try to dual-license their code, it will
not be accepted. i, linus torvalds, have spoken".  which i seriously
seriously doubt, but there seems to be some implication that that's
the case, here.


> If a company
> begins TiVoization, that's up to them. The kernel should allow that.

 well, it will continue to be "allowed" for many many years, even if
people dual-license their code in the linux kernel.

l.
--
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/