Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754576Ab3ESMYf (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 May 2013 08:24:35 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com ([209.85.223.182]:56980 "EHLO mail-ie0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752348Ab3ESMYd (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 May 2013 08:24:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20130519110407.987B21FE2D@orac.inputplus.co.uk> References: <1368918189923.dd7325ed@Nodemailer> <20130519110407.987B21FE2D@orac.inputplus.co.uk> Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 13:24:32 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Would like to form a pool of Linux copyright holders for faster GPL enforcement against Anthrax Kernels From: "luke.leighton" To: Ralph Corderoy Cc: Cole Johnson , legal@lists.gpl-violations.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4832 Lines: 113 On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > Hi Luke, > >> if i choose to release all copyright code under dual licenses then >> THAT IS MY RIGHT > > Sssh! It's a Sunday morning; hangover time for many. :) *sotto voice* sorry. > Does the LICENSING section in > http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/Documentation/development-process/1.Intro#L237 > help? it does in some ways. it doesn't answer the specific question, "how do i formally get my copyright announcement updated in the linux kernel source code" yet though but it does provide some opportunity to point out some errors and mis-... mis-somethings, i can't think of the exact word. 252 One implication of this ownership structure is that any attempt to change 253 the licensing of the kernel is doomed to almost certain failure. interesting. this statement completely and utterly misses the point. it assumes that "the kernel" and "the license" are directly and irrevocably linked. which they most certainly are not. the statement *should* read as follows: "any attempt to change the licensing on the files which make up the linux kernel" which, again is mis-leading - in this case very very badly - because it implies that somehow just because *most* of the files are under one license, therefore automatically people should not make their *own* mind - their own free and conscious choice - to release their contributions under alternative licenses. i could give half a dozen examples, here, including many books and films, documentaries, sports achievement stories and so on, all of which are along the lines of, "person decides to break mould/boundaries/tradition, gets told by priests/politicians/peers it's not possible, distance/time/resources are too far/long/small therefore you will fail/die/get-strung-up-for-heresy, they do it anyway, and everyone goes hurrah at the end". let's make another attempt: "we the major linux copyright holders, who wrote this documentation, respect your decision to choose an additional license as well as the GPLv2 to release your code under, and it is important to make it clear that we do not seek to influence your right to choose an additional license or licenses, one way or the other. the key to remember is that any files released under licenses *not* compatible with the GPLv2 *CANNOT* legally be used. as the kernel is an aggregated work, over time the accumulation of files under alternative licenses (those that are compatible with the current GPLv2 license) *may* result in a useful and useable subset of the linux kernel source files coming about. so our personal opinion here - which should in no way influence your own decisions - is that you are pissing in the wind if you think that's going to come about any time soon, and as a result of that, we (the major linux copyright holders who wrote this documentation) decided not to bother releasing our contributions under any license other than the GPLv2." 253 There are 254 few practical scenarios where the agreement of all copyright holders could 255 be obtained one such scenario would be to have a pool of individuals and entities that maintain a subscription to a list such that their permission - collectively - could be sought. if there are some individuals or entities that have begun the process, others may be more inclined to follow. but even there, it's still not the point: 255 (or their code removed from the kernel). i'm intrigued that there has been no mention of rewrites. at some point in the future, if there happens to be all but a critical but tiny subset under an alternative license, surely someone would step up and do a rewrite, yes? 255 So, in particular, 256 there is no prospect of a migration to version 3 of the GPL in the 257 foreseeable future. "forseeable future". is that a good reason to not take action?? "we're stuck here therefore we should not move" - how many civilisations have died out exactly because of that kind of thinking?? assuming we don't blow up the planet within 50-100 years, is it reasonable to assume that in 50-100 years - and this is a sincere question absolutely no dis-integrity here - is it reasonable to start the process now such that linux in 50 to 100 years time is useable under an alternative license? overall i see this entire paragraph as deeply flawed, full of assumptions, and thoroughly defeatist. i'm surprised that the attention to detail normally inherent in linux kernel programming hasn't been applied across the board. 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/