From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751211AbWA0HDa (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 02:03:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751386AbWA0HDa (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 02:03:30 -0500 Received: from bayc1-pasmtp05.bayc1.hotmail.com ([65.54.191.165]:16351 "EHLO BAYC1-PASMTP05.bayc1.hotmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751211AbWA0HD3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 02:03:29 -0500 Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: [69.156.6.171] X-Originating-Email: [seanlkml@sympatico.ca] Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:58:11 -0500 From: sean To: Marc Perkel Cc: chase.venters@clientec.com, diegocg@gmail.com, paul@clubi.ie, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-os@analogic.com, mrmacman_g4@mac.com, jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com, pmclean@cs.ubishops.ca, shemminger@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - V3 adds new restrictions Message-Id: <20060127015811.03beb9e5.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <43D94D1D.8070300@perkel.com> 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> <20060126195323.d553a4b8.diegocg@gmail.com> <43D92175.6010804@perkel.com> <43D92B45.1030601@perkel.com> <43D94D1D.8070300@perkel.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.0.4 (GTK+ 2.8.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jan 2006 07:03:25.0328 (UTC) FILETIME=[C4682900:01C6230F] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:28:45 -0800 Marc Perkel wrote: > Trying to look at this from a legal point of view. GPLv3 might actually > contradict GPLv2. > > GPLv3 is more RESTRICTIVE than v2. With v2 you didn't have the new > anti-DRM and anti-patent restrictions. The original license says > somewhere that you can't change the license to be more restrictive. > > None of us like patents and DRM but language that places new > restrictions on software might not be GPLv2 compatible. Stallman might > need to call his new license something else than GPL if he's going to > add language that adds restrictions. > > I can see an argument where GPLv2 prohibits GPLv3. > As the _owner_ of the code, you can set whatever license(s) you choose. You don't lose your copyright just because you've granted the rest of us the right to use your code under the terms of the GPL. For instance, licensing your code to the world as GPL does not mean you can't also license it to another group of people under XYZ terms. The XYZ license may be totally incompatible with the GPL and have many more restrictions (a prohibition against distribution for instance). Anyone who has agreed to the XYZ license with you, could also go grab a copy of the GPL'd code, but would then have to abide by _all_ the GPL conditions. Similarly, the owner of each piece of Linux code is free to make the code he released under GPLv2 available now under v3 without any conflict or violation of the prohibition against additional restrictions. Of course, older versions of the code would still be available under v2 as well; not even the owner can revoke that. Sean