From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422829AbWA1FX1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jan 2006 00:23:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422830AbWA1FX0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jan 2006 00:23:26 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:52932 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422829AbWA1FX0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jan 2006 00:23:26 -0500 Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 00:22:58 -0500 (EST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Alan Cox cc: Chase Venters , "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 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > This is basic copyright law, btw, and has nothing to do with the GPL per > se. If you don't have a license, you don't have any copyright AT ALL. This is really important, btw. Yes, when we speak colloquially we talk about the fact that Linux is licensed "under the GPL", but that is _not_ how anybody actually has ever gotten a license legally. The ONLY way anybody has ever legally licensed Linux is either with the original very strict copyright _or_ thanks to the COPYING file. Nothing else really matters. So the version of the GPL has always been explicit. At no point has the kernel been distributed without a specific version being clearly mentioned in the ONLY PLACE that gave you rights to copy the kernel in the first place. So either you knew it was GPLv2, or you didn't have the right to copy it in the first place. In other words, Linux has _never_ been licensed under anything but the GPL v2, and nobody has _ever_ gotten a legal Linux source distribution with anything but a complete copy of GPLv2 license file. So when I say that the additions at the top of the COPYING file are nothing but clarifications, I'm not just making that up. Anybody who claims that any Linux kernel I've ever made has ever been licensed under anything else than those exact two licenses is just not correct. And Alan, I know we've had this discussion before. You've claimed before that my clarifications are somehow "changing" the license, and I've told you before that no, they don't change the license, they just clarify things that people keep on gettign wrong, or keep on being nervous about. So people can argue all they want about this. But unless you get a real legal opinion (not just any random shyster - a real judge making a statement, or a respected professional who states his firm legal opinion in no uncertain terms), I don't think you have a legal leg to stand on. But no, IANAL. I'd be willing to bet real money that a real lawyer would back me up on this, though. Linus --- PS. Just out of historical interest, the only other copyright license ever distributed with the kernel was this one: "This kernel is (C) 1991 Linus Torvalds, but all or part of it may be redistributed provided you do the following: - Full source must be available (and free), if not with the distribution then at least on asking for it. - Copyright notices must be intact. (In fact, if you distribute only parts of it you may have to add copyrights, as there aren't (C)'s in all files.) Small partial excerpts may be copied without bothering with copyrights. - You may not distibute this for a fee, not even "handling" costs. Mail me at "torvalds@kruuna.helsinki.fi" if you have any questions." and that one was only valid between kernel versions 0.01 and 0.12 or something like that.