Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754887AbXFONDG (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:03:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752605AbXFONCz (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:02:55 -0400 Received: from viefep18-int.chello.at ([213.46.255.22]:60567 "EHLO viefep15-int.chello.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753781AbXFONCy (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:02:54 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:02:54 +0200 From: Carlo Wood To: Daniel Hazelton Cc: Bernd Paysan , Theodore Tso , Alexandre Oliva , Linus Torvalds , Sean , Adrian Bunk , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Alan Cox , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Message-ID: <20070615130254.GB11830@alinoe.com> Mail-Followup-To: Carlo Wood , Daniel Hazelton , Bernd Paysan , Theodore Tso , Alexandre Oliva , Linus Torvalds , Sean , Adrian Bunk , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Alan Cox , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu References: <20070615052432.GC14911@thunk.org> <200706151202.13708.bernd.paysan@gmx.de> <200706150633.51857.dhazelton@enter.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200706150633.51857.dhazelton@enter.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1908 Lines: 35 On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 06:33:51AM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > Incorrect. Read section 9 of the GPLv2. It's pretty clear that the "any later > version" clause is optional. Whats more is that since the modern linux kernel > *IS* a "composite work" composed of Linus' original code with changes > contributed by other people - Linus retains copyright to the work as a whole. Huh - surely not to files added to the kernel that were written by others from scratch! > This means that he can license it in any manner he chooses, as long as it > doesn't affect the copyrights (or licensing) of the people that have > contributed changes. I don't have to go to the US copyright law for this - > Linus released Linux under the GPL, others made changes and sent them back > saying "You let me have access to your code under the GPL, I've made some > changes that make it better. You can have my changes under the GPL." QED: > Linus still holds copyright to Linux and can license it in any way he > chooses. This is totally new to me - if this is true - I'd really like to be sure! I always thought that it would be necessary to get signatures of each and every contributor before you can change a license of a file. Why do you think that the FSF demands written copyright-transfers with signatures before you are allowed to submit a patch to any of their largers projects? If they - as original copyright holder - could do what you claim - they wouldn't need those signatures. Having signed a copyright transfer for 'future' changes for gprof, libiberty, readline, zlib, gcc, gdb, libstdc++, bfd, dejagnu, gas, and binutils, Carlo Wood - 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/