Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423021AbWBAX0w (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:26:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1423025AbWBAX0w (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:26:52 -0500 Received: from smtpq1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl ([213.51.146.200]:11736 "EHLO smtpq1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423021AbWBAX0v (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:26:51 -0500 Message-ID: <43E14451.1010100@keyaccess.nl> Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:29:21 +0100 From: Rene Herman User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders References: <43D114A8.4030900@wolfmountaingroup.com> <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> <43DF9D42.7050802@wolfmountaingroup.com> <43DFB0F2.4030901@wolfmountaingroup.com> <43DFDEF9.2030001@keyaccess.nl> <43E0C5E7.6050406@keyaccess.nl> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AtHome-MailScanner-Information: Neem contact op met support@home.nl voor meer informatie X-AtHome-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4047 Lines: 86 Linus Torvalds wrote: > You continue to ignore the big important fact that: > > - section 2 is _conditional_ on section 1 I'm not ignoring this -- I really just don't see it to be relevant. All sections have to be obeyed the same, and in this sense all sections are conditional on all others. Violate one, and the license is not available to you. This goes without saying. > - section 1 (and FSF guidelines) _requires_ you to leave copyright > notices intact and give the license out along with the program. > > IOW, your claim that the GPL requires you to be able to make changes is > INCORRECT. There are two things here that need seperating. On the one hand, we have "the program". On the other we have "the license" (and license notices). The GPL requires you to be able to make changes to the program, not the license. In the context of the Linux kernel, Linux is the program, and the GPLv2 is the license. In the context of the GPLv2, the GPLv2 is the program, and: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. is the license. If you couldn't change just this bit (and the FSF copyright) then things would not conflict. But this very license says you can't change _the program_ (the license document). This conflicts. > This can, btw, also be shown independently by the fact that the FSF > clearly _intended_ the license to be actively linked into the > program: they ask you (in the "How to Apply These Terms to Your New > Programs") to have commands to view parts of the license if your > program is interactive. This, in fact, seems to be a good point. This one wants an FSF lawyer. > So. Claiming that the GPL license text itself cannot be part of the > program is disingenious. According to your reading, the modified BSD > license wouldn't be compatible with the GPL either, because it requires: > > * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright > * notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer, > * without modification. > > yet the FSF has clearly stated that this is perfectly fine, even though it > also disallows modifications to the license text. But please note that this is indeed perfectly fine, and does not contradict anything I say. This requirement only disallows modifications to the copright and license notices, not modifications of the _program_ and the GPL is perfectly fine with that. This is the point I've tried to make a number of times now. The program is not the same thing as the license and allowing or disallowing something being done to the license is not the same thing as allowing or disallowing something to be done to the program. And in the case of the GPL license text, the license text _is_ the program. Not the license. Note, we are arguing here over whether or not the GPL document itself is GPL compatible. I feel it obvious that it is not, you do not agree. What we _do_ agree on though is that it's wholy irrelevant for the kernel at least since 2.4.0-test8. Ever since then, the kernel as a whole has been V2, not a doubt about it. You feel that even before that, it was V2 only but then you are ignoring the very strong point Paul Jakma made and which I repeated: if the "Version 2" in the GPL header were enough to have the program specify a version, section 9 would be utterly useless, and as such it's obvious that at very least the intent of the GPL authors here was that it was _not_ enough. Hey, you still replied, so you probably don't think I'm completely full of it. Did you think there was any merit in the suggestion of seperating the GPL and the NOTE into separate files, so as to leave even fewer room for people trying to milk the argument? Rene. - 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/