From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423087AbWBBHLx (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 02:11:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1423090AbWBBHLx (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 02:11:53 -0500 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.168]:9477 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423087AbWBBHLw (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 02:11:52 -0500 From: "David Schwartz" To: , Cc: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" Subject: RE: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:11:00 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <12C8ECBA-B36E-454A-9C03-8990EA5C4609@mac.com> X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:07:44 -0800 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:07:45 -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Kyle Moffet wrote: > But see, even assuming the really odd case of a project consisting of > one file, the GPL, that project would be completely GPL compatible. > As the license specifies the licensing terms for the project (IE: the > GPL), it may not legally be modified _even_ _under_ _copyright_ _law_ > (because it's the project license). As a result, it is that the GPL > document may also be GPL licensed (because the only restrictions > therein are automatically implied by copyright law in the first > place). That's just not true. There is no reason under copyright law why the author of a program could not modify its license. However, the GPL explicitly prohibits *anyone* from modifying it. The reason you can't modify the GPL, even we assume the GPL is licensed under the GPL, is because the GPL says you can't modify the GPL. Andrew Wade wrote: > As a practical matter, even if the GPL is technically GPL-incompatible, > the chances of anyone objecting to their GPLed code rubbing shoulders > with the GPL is remote. It is logically impossible for the GPL to be GPL-incompatible. To be GPL-incomptabile, a license would have to contain requirements or restrictions not found in the GPL. How could the GPL possibly do that? DS