Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964948AbWIWAL7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:11:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964952AbWIWAL7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:11:59 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.169]:55046 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964948AbWIWAL6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:11:58 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: RE: The GPL: No shelter for the Linux kernel? Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:11:52 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 Importance: Normal X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:14:55 -0800 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:14:56 -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2119 Lines: 49 > On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, David Schwartz wrote: > > This is probably going to be controversial, but Linus should seriously > > consider adding a clause that those who contribute to the > > kernel from now on > > consent to allow him to modify the license on their current > > contributions > > and all past contributions, amending the Linux kernel license as > > appropriate. This would at least begin to reduce this problem > > over the next > > few years, leaving fewer and fewer people with claim to less > > and less code > > who would have legal standing to object. > It's the last thing I'd ever want to do, for all the same reasons the > kernel doesn't have the "or later versions" language wrt licenses. > I don't actually want people to need to trust anybody - and that > very much includes me - implicitly. > I think people can generally trust me, but they can trust me exactly > because they know they don't _have_ to. Yeah, I see your point. However, what happens if three years from now, there is some reason that the Linux kernel license really does need to be changed to fix a serious problem? We're basically just screwed. While it is true that people don't have to trust you now. They do have to trust/hope that there won't come a future time when some license problem or change in law significantly impairs their ability to use Linux. I can think of procedural safeguards against the "Linus sells out" or "Linus goes insane" potential problems, but I don't have a perfect solution. I'm not even sure I have a good one, other than hoping there never is such a problem and/or that there's some good way to deal with one should one arise. Suppose hypothetically GPLv3 had been really, really good and there was a general consensus that it would provide siginficant benefits if it could be applied to Linux. It might be nice to be able to apply it. DS - 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/