Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757289AbXFJPiv (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:38:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752813AbXFJPim (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:38:42 -0400 Received: from srv1.netkinetics.net ([206.71.148.180]:60455 "EHLO srv1.netkinetics.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752373AbXFJPil (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:38:41 -0400 Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 From: Tim Post Reply-To: tim.post@netkinetics.net To: Neil Brown Cc: Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <18027.50727.190221.80822@notabene.brown> References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <18026.16739.228277.938421@notabene.brown> <466BBB0B.4050303@netone.net.tr> <18027.50727.190221.80822@notabene.brown> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Net Kinetics Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:38:04 +0800 Message-Id: <1181489884.6252.462.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - srv1.netkinetics.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - netkinetics.net X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3398 Lines: 71 On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 19:36 +1000, 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. > > And I wouldn't be surprised if there were some legal precedent that > allowed for some process whereby we could make a "best effort" to > contact copyright holders (including registered paper letters and > entries in the "Public Notices" section of major newspapers) and if > no-one stepped forward to claim copyright in a reasonable period of > time we could assume that the copyright had lapsed. But you would > need to ask a lawyer, and it would be different in different > countries. I've done some research on this and from what I can tell you are correct. There is some sort of "Due Diligence" law that you have to satisfy that is slightly different from country to country. >From what I can tell the process is similar to changing your name, an ad in the paper would be o.k. in most places. Since the intent of the copyright holder to make their work free is clear, its pretty clear cut. It was hard to find specifics, because not many people worry about it if they know the copyright holder to be existentially challenged. I didn't find many cases of people even bothering with the formality. I say existentially challenged because you don't need to be dead to vanish. I also read it as ".. a person of questionable existence." as well as "A null (or moot) party". > But I think this is largely academic. You only need a fairly small > number of fairly significant contributors to say "no" and the rest of > the process would be pointless. And at last count, the number of > kernel people who were not keen on GPLv3 was fairly high. Of course > no-one knows for certain yet what the final GPLv3 will be, and maybe > lots of people would change their mind when it comes out. I think its good that people have their own viewpoints instead of just watching the Linus - RMS tennis match as the points of the license get debated and assuming the views of whoever 'wins' in their eyes. Neither person is going to be around forever. > There would certainly be value in a straw-pole once GPLv3 was out and > had been discussed for a while - to see if a license change to GPLv3 > would be accepted by a majority of current developers. Doing that > would at least provide a clear statistic to point people at. Unless you are distributing the Linux kernel in a whole or parts of it in some way you don't even HAVE to accept the terms of the GPL2, or GPL3 for that matter. This doesn't really concern me as an end user, but it should interest me (and does). I'm more worried about someone finding a way to leverage existing or future patents against users of the Linux kernel, or people who provide the use of a computer using the Linux kernel as a service. I'm not *overly* concerned about that. Anyone trying to get people to pay for the right to use the Linux kernel would put themselves in clear and certain danger of becoming ' a person of questionable existence ' themselves. Best, --Tim - 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/