From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750988AbWA0Ni0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:38:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750989AbWA0Ni0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:38:26 -0500 Received: from dspnet.fr.eu.org ([213.186.44.138]:2062 "EHLO dspnet.fr.eu.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750987AbWA0Ni0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:38:26 -0500 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:38:25 +0100 From: Olivier Galibert To: David Schwartz Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders Message-ID: <20060127133823.GB65793@dspnet.fr.eu.org> Mail-Followup-To: Olivier Galibert , David Schwartz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <43D8FEF2.3080502@wolfmountaingroup.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 06:15:54PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > Linus can't put additional restrictions on code he didn't write. If the > authors licensed it under the GPL version 2 and "any later version", Linus > can't re-release it under a more restrictive license. Yes he can. The authors licensed the code under _multiple_ licenses (even if some do not exist yet, which can be amusing, legally), each of the existing one(s) allowing redistribution if you accept it. He does not have to accept _all_ of them to redistribute, _one_ of them is enough. And none of them allow to put the code under a different license, in contrast to say the LGPL. OG.