From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932220AbWA3L1k (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2006 06:27:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932223AbWA3L1k (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2006 06:27:40 -0500 Received: from outpipe-village-512-1.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:16788 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932220AbWA3L1j (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2006 06:27:39 -0500 Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders From: Alan Cox To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Chase Venters , "linux-os \\(Dick Johnson\\)" , Kyle Moffett , Marc Perkel , "Jeff V. Merkey" , Patrick McLean , Stephen Hemminger , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: 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> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:26:30 +0000 Message-Id: <1138620390.31089.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Gwe, 2006-01-27 at 21:06 -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Not correct. See section 9. > > Sorry, I think you're wrong. > > We've _always_ said which license explicitly. It's in the COPYING file. > > Even before the clarification, the COPYING file has always said > > > GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE > Version 2, June 1991 -- If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. -- "COPYING" is the license not the program. If it were the program you would be violating the GPL as the GPL license text is not itself GPL compatible. It is also not a statement of the version of the software but a statement of the version of the document itself. Both seem quite self evident and clear. Since the document itself provides choices for versions to be applied it cannot be said to imply a version either. Nowdays you specifically state version 2 then reproduce the license document. That likewise seems self evident and clear. Section 9 probably gives you the right to do that for any code that did not specify a version rule already. You might also want to ask "if the FSF COPYING text specified the program version as you claim then how would you specify versions differently". And likewise "How come the FSF itself, author of the license, distributes its default COPYING file with code clearly intended and marked to be GPL v2 or later". In short your interpretation of the past state of affairs would not stand up to scrutiny. > If you distribute a program, and you just say "I license this under the > GPL", THEN you don't specify a verion. And merely adding the copying file likewise is still not specifying a version. You may be *implying* one but that is not specifying. > Linux kernel files don't say "This is licensed under the GPL". Not mine, > at least. I don't see the point, and I never have. There's a COPYING file The point is to avoid ambiguity. Consider the statement in clause 2 -- In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. -- The COPYING file is mere aggregation - it is a seperately licensed and independant work to the program with incompatible conditions. In the kernel case this does not matter as you included text with COPYING to make the intent clear, and there is no doubt, nor alternate licenses. Consider however taking BSD 2 clause licensed code and relicensing it GPL with changes. If the GPL was merely placed with the code it would not be clear that the GPL now applied to it, especially if there are other independant GPL programs in the same archive. The advice text with the GPL itself thus provides for the 'fail safe' worst case scenario rather than neccessarily addressing all cases in the minimal and neatest fashion. Lawyers dislike amibguity because it causes expensive problems later on. (Also historically an assertion of copyright was neccessary avoid being public domain in the USA and some other countries.) Alan