From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751256AbWA0Kq2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:46:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751440AbWA0Kq2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:46:28 -0500 Received: from darla.ti-wmc.nl ([217.114.97.45]:39301 "EHLO smtp.wmc") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751256AbWA0Kq1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:46:27 -0500 Message-ID: <43D9F9F9.5060501@ti-wmc.nl> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:46:17 +0100 From: Simon Oosthoek User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "linux-os \\(Dick Johnson\\)" , Kyle Moffett , Marc Perkel , "Jeff V. Merkey" , Patrick McLean , Stephen Hemminger , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders 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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: > The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some > individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in > general. I believe that if v2 and v3 turn out to be incompatible, it would be quite hard to rationalise v3+ licensed files inside the kernel. So when people want their code to be in the kernel and still be v3+ compatible, they should probably dual license it, or include a specific section saying that the code can be licensed under v2 only if in the context of the Linux kernel. > And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to > require people to make their private signing keys available, for > example. I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is > going to happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to > convert any of my code. I'm not sure this is the correct interpretation of the current draft. I assume you're referring to this part: GPLv3-draft1: > (...) > Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or > authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source > code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or > principal context of use, such that its functioning in all > circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by > your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary > to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code > need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies > the user already has it. > (...) I'd interpret that as forcing people who try to hide their code or make it difficult to get at the source code to not be able to do that. I'm not sure this would affect the Linux kernel at all and I don't think it would require any of your private keys to be disclosed at all. If you would sign or encrypt the kernel distribution with your private key, everyone would need to have access to your public key, but that's the whole idea anyway. Cheers Simon