From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751084AbWAaXsW (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:48:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751089AbWAaXsW (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:48:22 -0500 Received: from outpipe-village-512-1.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:56448 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751084AbWAaXsV (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:48:21 -0500 Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders From: Alan Cox To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "Jeff V. Merkey" , Chase Venters , "linux-os \\(Dick Johnson\\)" , Kyle Moffett , Marc Perkel , Patrick McLean , Stephen Hemminger , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <43D114A8.4030900@wolfmountaingroup.com> <20060120111103.2ee5b531@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> <43D13B2A.6020504@cs.ubishops.ca> <43D7C780.6080000@perkel.com> <43D7B20D.7040203@wolfmountaingroup.com> <43D7B5C4.5040601@wolfmountaingroup.com> <43D7D05D.7030101@perkel.com> <1138387136.26811.8.camel@localhost> <1138620390.31089.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43DF9D42.7050802@wolfmountaingroup.com> <43DFB0F2.4030901@wolfmountaingroup.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:48:38 +0000 Message-Id: <1138751318.10316.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Maw, 2006-01-31 at 12:38 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Alan argues that that extra notice "changed" the license (and that any > code that is older than 5 years would somehow not be GPLv2). I argue > otherwise. I argue that for the whole history, Linux has been v2-only > unless otherwise explicitly specified. > > And I don't think even Alan will argue that the "v2 only" thing hasn't > been true for the last five years. I would argue its irrelevance Two cases (lets call them a and b) a) The GPLv2 only was always the case b) There was no version so it was open to choice Which ultimately means either a) Linus changed nothing b) Linus chose a version as the License allowed him to in accordance with section 9. So we have two legal outcomes both of which produce the right answer for any vaguely recent source tree. At which point does it matter ? My point was to make clear that assuming the GPL original text implies the version of the code is wrong, and explain why the FSF recommend the long text. Is there doubt about the license status of the current code - not in this area, no. The COPYING file is extremely clear on this, and more importantly in other possible unclear and problematic areas. For example the statement that the system calls are not derivative statement which resolves the biggest interpretation concern of all. Alan