Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755526AbXIQMJB (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:09:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753554AbXIQMIx (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:08:53 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.169]:4175 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752346AbXIQMIx (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:08:53 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Cc: "Adrian Bunk" , "Can E. Acar" , , , "Eben Moglen" , "Lawrence Lessig" , "Bradley M. Kuhn" , "Matt Norwood" Subject: RE: Wasting our Freedom Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 05:08:46 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20070917091038.GB23002@schlund.de> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 Importance: Normal X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Mon, 17 Sep 2007 05:09:24 -0700 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Mon, 17 Sep 2007 05:09:28 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3597 Lines: 82 Hannah Schroeter wrote: > The original issue *was* about illegal relicensing (i.e. not just > choosing which terms to follow, but removing the other terms > altogether). You are confusing two completely different issues. One is about removing license notices, the other is about relicensing. One has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. No amount of changing license notices affects the license a recipient gets to any code that the license changer did not contribute. You cannot, in the sense of it being legally impossible, affect the license your recipients get to code you did not author. Relicensing is simply impossible under either the BSD license or the GPL license. Neither grants you any relicensing rights. Remove the BSD license from a dual-licensed work doesn't relicense anything. Everyone who gets the work still gets a dual license from the original author. > It does state you can choose which terms to follow, indeed, of course. > But that does *not* imply removing the other terms altogether. Of course not. But since the GPL does not require you to keep a BSD license notice intact and the BSD license does not require you to keep a GPL license notice intact, the result is that you do have the right to remove the other license's terms altogether. Note that this has no effect whatsoever on the rights anyone actually gets. Rights come from licenses, not license notices. If you were right, a dual-licensed work would not be GPL compatible. Since the GPL prohibits the use of any mechanism to prohibit modification to the work (other than the inability to remove the GPL itself). > Removing the terms you choose not to follow in one instance *is* > relicensing. Umm, no. That's so obviously mind-bogglingly crazy that I don't even know where to start. Let's try a hypothetical: I download the entire Linux kernel and remove every single GPL license notice and replace it with a public domain notice. I then distribute the result. Am I relicensing the Linux kernel? Isn't it obvious that I'm not. I *can't*. I have no right to change the license under which other people's code is offered. When you change a license notice, that has no effect on the actual license anyone gets to anyone else's work. You license notice changes can only affect licenses that *you* grant. Nothing requires a license that exists to be documented in the accompanying file. There is nothing in copyright law that is offended by the idea that someone might remove a license notification even though the license still applies so long as the license only *adds* rights. The only reason we can't remove the GPL license from the Linux kernel is because the GPL says so. > As said above, the accusations, if you read them correctly, were not > wrong, but spot on right. Unless someone proves that dual-licensing as > in "you may follow terms A or terms B at your choice" implicitly implies > being allowed to remove A altogether should you choose B. You are confusing licenses with license notices. The GPL says you must keep GPL license notices intact. Otherwise, it gives you complete freedom to modify. This means that if you choose the GPL, you gain (from the GPL) the right to remove the BSD license *NOTICE*. This has no effect on anyone's substantive rights though. Removing license notices has no effect on actual licenses. DS - 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/