Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756589AbXFJNFN (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:05:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754063AbXFJNFB (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:05:01 -0400 Received: from dhazelton.dsl.enter.net ([216.193.185.50]:50760 "EHLO mail.keil-draco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752458AbXFJNFA (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:05:00 -0400 From: Daniel Hazelton To: Jiri Kosina Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:04:55 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: Neil Brown , Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <18027.50727.190221.80822@notabene.brown> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706100904.55372.dhazelton@enter.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1852 Lines: 32 On Sunday 10 June 2007 08:45:41 Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Neil Brown wrote: > > I presume the heirs of the dead people could change the license. And if > > they have no heir, then there is no-one to sue for breach of copyright, > > so I assume the copyright lapses. > > In most of the law systems out there the copyright stays valid for 70 > years (or so) after the holder's death. I'm almost certain that it is the same in the US, not the death+90 previously stated. (I've read the copyright laws a number of times to deal with some involved conversations) In some of the writings tied the change that made it death+70 its stated that said change was made to "bring US laws in line with Europe and most of the rest of the world" (paraphrase - I didn't bother going and digging out the page again). It's a relatively common belief - and, IIRC, was even brought before the US Supreme Court - that the copyrights length was changed to give Disney longer protection, if just because a lot of Disney's copyrights were going to expire and the change was applied retroactively. (And, unsurprisingly, the suit was shot down - 70 years is still a "limited" period. However, IIRC, there was some noted concern by the Supreme Court that the US Congress would exploit the legal loophole and just keep extending the copyright period retroactively to make it, effectively, never-ending. That scenario, while not *technically* in violation of the language of the US Constitution (which grants the US Congress the power to set the length of copyrights) would violate the spirit of it) DRH - 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/