Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders

[Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>]

On Feb 02, 2006, at 01:39, Andrew James Wade wrote:
> ... Subject to the terms of Section 1. It says so explicitly:
> "You may ... under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you  
> also ..." The GPL requires you to be able to make changes to the  
> program _except_ for changes that would not "keep intact all the  
> notices that refer to this License" (+ a couple of other exceptions).

But see, even assuming the really odd case of a project consisting of  
one file, the GPL, that project would be completely GPL compatible.   
As the license specifies the licensing terms for the project (IE: the  
GPL), it may not legally be modified _even_ _under_ _copyright_ _law_  
(because it's the project license).  As a result, it is that the GPL  
document may also be GPL licensed (because the only restrictions  
therein are automatically implied by copyright law in the first  
place).  The FSF also mentions in their "deriving from the GPL" page  
that you may create any derivation you want, but you may not  
reference the GPL or FSF in such a revised license.  That doesn't  
affect or infringe on the GPL either, because such misuse would be  
trademark infringement (outside the GPL) and not copyright  
infringement (covered by the GPL), and therefore still doesn't affect  
the terms of the GPL itself.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

--
Somone asked me why I work on this free (http://www.fsf.org/ 
philosophy/) software stuff and not get a real job. Charles Schulz  
had the best answer:

"Why do musicians compose symphonies and poets write poems? They do  
it because life wouldn't have any meaning for them if they didn't.  
That's why I draw cartoons. It's my life."
   -- Charles Schulz