Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders

[Marc Perkel <marc@perkel.com>]

Alan Cox wrote:
> On Maw, 2006-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>   
>> The fact that the COPYING file has a different copyright really doesn't 
>> matter. It's still part of the release. 
>>     
>
> Law is about precision and exact wording as well as intent. The exact
> wording is "the Program" not "the release". And Program is capitalised
> to indicate the use of the definition made earlier. That is: "The
> "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based
> on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under
> copyright law"
>
>   

Actually the law is more precisely about the intent of the people making 
the license/contract as opposed to the wording. Especially when there is 
fast moving technology involved. If in 1991 Linus released his software 
under GPL v2 and the wold changes in 15 years so that words mean things 
differently than they did then, or newer licenses come out to deal with 
new issues not contemplated back then, the meaning of the agreement is 
interpreted on the basis of the intent and not on the exact wording of 
the contract.

For example. I am a painter and I contract to paint your house white at 
123 main street and I show up on the job and your house is really 125 
main street and you change your mind and decide to have me paint it 
yellow and I do that, and then you say you don't owe me because that 
contract says you agreed to paint 123 main st white and you painted 125 
main street yellow - you lose. The intent of the contract was that I 
paint your house.

The meaning of the Linux license is what Linus intended it to be in 1991 
and the way it is used in the following years. People who contribute to 
the Kernel are presumed to understand the spirit of the project and if 
their license says something else but they contributed it to the Kernel 
then they are deamed to have waived their rights by contributing it to 
the Kernel and accepting the Kernel's license.

I have way too much legal experience for someone who isn't a lawyer, but 
if you don't believe me print this out and run it past a real lawyer and 
see if they don't agree. The reality is that the Kernel license it what 
Linus says it is and we all trust Linus as a condition for contributing 
to the Kernel.

Having said that, lawyers can argue anything so if the wording and 
reality were the same it makes it easier. So it is worth it to some 
extent to clear up issues if we can.