From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751478AbWA0PcF (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:32:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751484AbWA0PcF (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:32:05 -0500 Received: from darla.ti-wmc.nl ([217.114.97.45]:21136 "EHLO smtp.wmc") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751272AbWA0PcC (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:32:02 -0500 Message-ID: <43DA3CF1.4010404@ti-wmc.nl> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:32:01 +0100 From: Simon Oosthoek Organization: WMC User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Viro Cc: Olivier Galibert , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders References: <43D7D05D.7030101@perkel.com> <43D9F9F9.5060501@ti-wmc.nl> <20060127133939.GU27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> <43DA2795.707@ti-wmc.nl> <20060127141850.GC65793@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <43DA3155.2060902@ti-wmc.nl> <20060127152028.GV27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20060127152028.GV27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Al Viro wrote: > > That's GPL working *as* *intended*. No, you can't create a derivative > of GPLv2 program and prohibit the use of your modifications in other > GPLv2 programs. It's not just "Linus won't accept it upstream"; it's > "you can't even distribute such fork yourself". And it's 100% intentional - > that's what GPL is about. I think I understand the GPL, but I'm not a lawyer :-) > As for the harm... We somehow survived years of similar "harmful" situation. > No, you can't put proprietary code in kernel and prohibit other GPLv2 > projects to reuse it. Yes, it would theoretically turn some authors of > extremely valuable (but never materializing) code away. And yes, there had > been very similar whining and dire warnings. Nothing new here... The comparison between proprietary and GPLv3 code is disconcerting and strangely funny in this way :-/ What I think *is* new here is that some people would consider GPLv3 a logical extension of GPLv2 (in the sense of enhancing freedom), but if it turns out that it's so different from GPLv2 that GPLv3 code cannot be mixed into the v2 kernel, which does stem from the same philosophy. I suppose I'll just wait for the next draft and check again... thanks for the feedback! /Simon -- phone:(+31|0)53 4810319 fax: (+31|0)53 4810333 simon.oosthoek@ti-wmc.nl http://www.ti-wmc.nl/