Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: tridge@samba.org
Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <17692.53185.564741.502063@samba.org>
References: <1159498900.3880.31.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>
	 <17692.41932.957298.877577@cse.unsw.edu.au>
	 <1159512998.3880.50.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>
	 <17692.53185.564741.502063@samba.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:59:35 +0100
Message-Id: <1159534775.13029.18.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 935
Lines: 17

Ar Gwe, 2006-09-29 am 17:48 +1000, ysgrifennodd tridge@samba.org:
> I'm also a strong proponent of "authors rights", and I would consider
> it very nasty if someone took one of my projects and decided to fork
> it to be GPLv2 only, deliberately going against my intention. They
> might have a legal right to do so but it would clearly be against my
> wishes.  I'm not even 100% certain it would be legal.

In the FSF case the reverse is more likely - the FSF uses its copyright
assignments to re-version a piece of software they own the rights to.
That I think is self-curing because people will contribute to the forked
tree without giving the FSF assignments - which is authors rights 8)

-
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/