Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755328AbXIQMGi (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:06:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752961AbXIQMGa (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:06:30 -0400 Received: from mxintern.schlund.de ([212.227.126.205]:56344 "EHLO mxintern.schlund.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752753AbXIQMG3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:06:29 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:06:27 +0200 From: Hannah Schroeter To: David Schwartz Cc: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: Re: Wasting our Freedom Message-ID: <20070917120627.GA581@schlund.de> Mail-Followup-To: Hannah Schroeter , David Schwartz , "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" References: <20070917112004.GB31443@schlund.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Schlund + Partner AG X-UI-Msg-Verification: a0420907bedab581c4ebc6bf7d628514 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3571 Lines: 84 Hello! On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 04:57:29AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:19:41PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: >> >[...] >> >If you take work that's under a dual-license and remove one >> >license notice >> >from it when you create a derivative work, every recipient of that >> >derivative work still receives a dual license from the original author to >> >every protectable element still in the distributed work. >> But you may *not* remove the license notices on GPL/BSD dual-licensed >> works. *Both* forbid removing the licensing terms. >No, I'm sorry, this is not correct. The GPL gives you the right to remove >the BSD license. Read the GPL and please tell me where it says you must keep >the BSD license notice intact. Do *you* read the GPL and tell me where exactly it does *explicitly* allow to change license notices at all. Ya know, that right is reserved by law and must be *explicitly* granted. So just not explicitly forbidding it isn't enough. >[...] >But in the case of a dual-licensed work, you can obtain the right to modify >or distribute it from the GPL. In that case, you can totally ignore anything >the BSD license says. You are under no obligation to comply with it. >As for copyright law prohibiting it, the GPL is quite clear about allowing >it. The GPL permits all modifications except those it specifically restricts >(and none of those rules would prohibit removing a BSD license). It permits modifications of the *work*, but not of the license. (Re)Licensing is a *seperate* reserved right of copyright holders. >[...] >Copyright law permits you to impose all kinds of restrictions on what people >can do with your work. No. Copyright reserves rights. Copyright imposes *all* restrictions by itself. You need to explicitly relinguish the restrictions for others to be allowed to do just nearly *anything* (except fair use rights) with the work. >However, when you offer a work under the GPL, you >lose any right to insist that the work remain in any particular form or >contain any particular elements, except the GPL itself. The GPL grants >modification rights limited only by the restrictions in the GPL itself. It grants modification rights to the *work*, but not modification of license (relicensing). >You cannot use any form of subterfuge to get something into a GPL-compatible >file that I cannot remove, by any means. (Other than the GPL license, of >course.) See GPL section 6. 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. Now, the copyright holder hirself can exercise any rights anyway, as zie doesn't need any license at all, anyway. And then, you just are not allowed to restrict *rights granted herein*. But the *rights granted herein* do not include relicensing (or where does the GPL explicitly grant the right of relicensing?). So one *may* restrict relicensing. In fact relicensing is restricted by "default" (law). >DS Kind regards, Hannah. - 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/