Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758010AbXFMNML (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:12:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753382AbXFMNL6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:11:58 -0400 Received: from khc.piap.pl ([195.187.100.11]:54625 "EHLO khc.piap.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752872AbXFMNL5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:11:57 -0400 To: Bernd Paysan Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <20070612184110.GB7980@kroah.com> <200706131402.11396.bernd.paysan@gmx.de> From: Krzysztof Halasa Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:11:55 +0200 In-Reply-To: <200706131402.11396.bernd.paysan@gmx.de> (Bernd Paysan's message of "Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:02:10 +0200") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2625 Lines: 69 Bernd Paysan writes: > I want to add my two cents on what I think the legal status of the > individual contributions to Linux are. The thing in question is not the > GPLv2 itself (which is pretty clear that code without explicit statements > is under "any", That's not exactly true. A work without explicit statements is not licenced at all. > This particular comment to how the GPL is applied to the Linux kernel > therefore doesn't change the GPL as such Of course. > Again: What Linus is entitled to do is to *select* the license under which > he redistributes the code downstream. Sure. > The GPLv2 however is very clear how the end user gets the license: from the > original author. I'd be surprised if it's for GPL to decide. > Not from the man in the middle, from a distributor or > kernel maintainer, who can neither add nor drop restrictions/permissions > (and thus the special rights of a compilation editor are void). The author > can only speak for himself, not by behalf of somebody else, as well as the > compilation editor. How about derived works? Am I free to get BSD source, incorporate it in GPL project, and release the whole under GPL? Sure, the original source stays BSD but I don't distribute it. > That's why the FSF is so strict about having each > author stating copyright and the license conditions on the top of the > file - nobody else can. I'm not sure the copyright laws define "files". > So my conclusion is: If you, as contributor to the Linux kernel, want to > make clear that your work really is GPLv2 only, you have to do that > yourself, you have to add a notice like above to files where you > exclusively own copyright. I don't think the law works like that. By default you have no rights to someone's work (file or project). The only licence I can find with Linux is GPL v2, isn't it? And even that wasn't stated explicite until that 2.4.0something (though there is a consensus that the COPYING file was indeed a licence for the whole kernel). Then you may have additional rights, such as those given in various source files. > The rest (the majority) did not > choose to say anything, which under the GPL regime means "any"; What exactly is the "GPL regime" and how is it defined by copyright law and/or the GPL licence itself (or will of copyright holders etc.)? -- Krzysztof Halasa - 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/