From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750790AbWA1XPy (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jan 2006 18:15:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750791AbWA1XPy (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jan 2006 18:15:54 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:9883 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750790AbWA1XPx (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jan 2006 18:15:53 -0500 Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 18:14:29 -0500 (EST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Al Viro cc: Alan Cox , 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: <20060128062504.GW27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: References: <43D7B20D.7040203@wolfmountaingroup.com> <43D7B5C4.5040601@wolfmountaingroup.com> <43D7D05D.7030101@perkel.com> <1138387136.26811.8.camel@localhost> <20060128062504.GW27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> 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 Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Al Viro wrote: > > > > - 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. > > Interesting... What does that do to e.g. DVD with full (OK, modulo missing > early versions) kernel history all way back to 0.01? Well, the good news is that I was the only real copyright holder back then (there's a couple of other people who contributed to 0.11 and/or 0.12, mainly Ted T'so with the BSD terminal control stuff - ^Z and friends). I used to even re-write patches to suit my style (this was back then, the patches were smaller, and I was younger and had more energy). So some things that others sent in patches for (I think Peter McDonald did pty's) I ended up re-writing myself (and in the process I mixed up the master and slave pty major number, iirc ;) > Even funnier question is what does that do to full CVS including the > early versions. Can that be distributed at all and what license would > fit it? Arguing that it's mere aggregation is possible, but it's a > bit of a stretch... I think you can take it for granted that the GPL re-licensing was retro-active. I'm the sole copyright holder for 99% of it, and there were no objections to the relicensing even back when it happened, so I can pretty much guarantee that there would be none now ;) It was a kind of strange license. I didn't spend a whole lot of time thinking about it ;) Linus