Re: The GPL: No shelter for the Linux kernel?

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:49:53PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Isn't all this complete nonsense considering that the COPYING file in 
> the kernel contains the following?
> 
> <--  snip  -->

In a way, it is, but no one else is standing up in the free software
community becides Linus stating that they think the GPLv3 is bad.  So we
wanted to make our statement also known.

> In the internal discussions there was one point that changes this 
> pictures, and I would consider it highly immoral to keep it secret since 
> it affects every single contributor to Linux.
> 
> Thinking about probably changing the license of the kernel makes sense 
> if you believe the following "nuclear option" is a real option:
> 
>      1. It is a legally tenable and arguable position that the Linux
>         kernel is a work of joint authorship whose legal citus is that
>         of the USA.
>      2. On this basis, a single co-author can cause the kernel to be
>         relicensed.
>      3. To be legally sound, such a co-author would have to be either a
>         current major subsystem maintainer or a demonstrated contributor
>         of a significant proportion of code of the kernel.

Note that almost no lawyer that I have spoken to about this believes
this is an option.  However, one lawyer I have talked to does believe
this, luckily, that lawyer does not have a client who is a co-author in
the current Linux kernel :)

Anyway, this is arguing a legal point on lkml that even the lawyers
don't all agree apon.  I don't think it will get very far here either.

And don't let it detract from the main issue here, the GPLv3 as drafted
has some major issues that a number of us publicly object to, and feel
it will cause great harm if it becomes ratified as drafted.

thanks,

greg k-h