Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751175AbWBAAGs (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:06:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751179AbWBAAGs (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:06:48 -0500 Received: from outpipe-village-512-1.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:30849 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751166AbWBAAGr (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:06:47 -0500 Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders From: Alan Cox To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Chase Venters , "linux-os \\(Dick Johnson\\)" , Kyle Moffett , Marc Perkel , "Jeff V. Merkey" , Patrick McLean , Stephen Hemminger , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <43D114A8.4030900@wolfmountaingroup.com> <20060120111103.2ee5b531@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> <43D13B2A.6020504@cs.ubishops.ca> <43D7C780.6080000@perkel.com> <43D7B20D.7040203@wolfmountaingroup.com> <43D7B5C4.5040601@wolfmountaingroup.com> <43D7D05D.7030101@perkel.com> <1138387136.26811.8.camel@localhost> <1138620390.31089.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:06:48 +0000 Message-Id: <1138752408.10316.41.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2118 Lines: 45 On Maw, 2006-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > The fact that the COPYING file has a different copyright really doesn't > matter. It's still part of the release. Law is about precision and exact wording as well as intent. The exact wording is "the Program" not "the release". And Program is capitalised to indicate the use of the definition made earlier. That is: "The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law" The COPYING file is not derivative and is not by any usual interpretation part of the program. As I said and showed earlier the COPYING file cannot be part of the program without contradiction. Ask a law student if you don't believe me, or do it in equations not words... > It's absolutely not different from having a separate "Release notes" file > which specifies the copyright conditions. That's how Linux-0.01 did it: > the thing was outside the actual main tar-ball, and sent out both as part > of the announcemnt and as a separate file in the same directory on the > ftp-site. The release notes are part of the program. The section starting "NOTE!" is maybe part of the program (thats a real lawyer question). However whether it is or not is such clear intent that nobody would win an argument that you had not said nowdays that it is V2 > I can make very specific arguments for why version 2 ONLY is the specific > license that covers Linux. In contrast you can only make weasel-wording Well if you consider accurate interpretation of language 'weasel wording' I can only feel sorry for you and be glad you write code not English. But since I don't actually want to change the license on the kernel and I already can if I wanted for the small percentage I wrote I don't see the need to continue the debate. Alan - 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/