From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423028AbWBBGjj (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 01:39:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1423022AbWBBGji (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 01:39:38 -0500 Received: from xproxy.gmail.com ([66.249.82.192]:16164 "EHLO xproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423031AbWBBGjh (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 01:39:37 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:from; b=rKLdzkmf+dJLGtXpmUT5pWvLVdZ4nOMUvKILe5z+RwdFLa3U2xyTBUvnNSCT+ywrpTw7ZycuO/nFqVQX2z7mmgI1scibujxuqdyltFkNQN4UnYHDBE4wylGTfWxtJI/9UMcpGvk4SOZ/bS3nYqLajKMDGbjfpMaMPJApuw/e5Tw= Reply-To: ajwade@cpe001346162bf9-cm0011ae8cd564.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com To: Rene Herman Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 01:39:25 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.3 Cc: Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <43D114A8.4030900@wolfmountaingroup.com> <43E14451.1010100@keyaccess.nl> In-Reply-To: <43E14451.1010100@keyaccess.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200602020139.26065.ajwade@cpe001346162bf9-cm0011ae8cd564.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com> From: Andrew James Wade Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:29, Rene Herman wrote: > There are two things here that need seperating. On the one hand, we have > "the program". On the other we have "the license" (and license notices). > The GPL requires you to be able to make changes to the program, ... 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). Editing the text of the GPL in the COPYING file would certainly violate this. However, copying COPYING to a new file (license_for_foo, say) and editing that copy wouldn't. The GPL allows this, the GPL's license does not, ergo, in the final analysis I think you are right that the GPL's license is not literally GPL-compatible. > > This can, btw, also be shown independently by the fact that the FSF > > clearly _intended_ the license to be actively linked into the > > program: they ask you (in the "How to Apply These Terms to Your New > > Programs") to have commands to view parts of the license if your > > program is interactive. > > This, in fact, seems to be a good point. This one wants an FSF lawyer. There is a very strong implication there that the GPL can be incorporated into GPLed code. I'd read it as allowing the GPL v 2 to be included in GPLed source code notwithstanding Section 2. It'd be nice if that were explicit and part of the Terms and Conditions, but the verbiage is part of the License, and I suspect counts for something. But IANAL. As a practical matter, even if the GPL is technically GPL-incompatible, the chances of anyone objecting to their GPLed code rubbing shoulders with the GPL is remote. Andrew Wade