linux-kernel - Re: Would like to form a pool of Linux copyright holders for faster GPL enforcement against Anthrax Kernels

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 19 May 2013 14:01:40 -0400
From:	Thomas Charron <twaffle@...il.com>
To:	"luke.leighton" <luke.leighton@...il.com>
Cc:	Ralph Corderoy <ralph@...utplus.co.uk>,
	GPL Violations <legal@...ts.gpl-violations.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Would like to form a pool of Linux copyright holders for faster
 GPL enforcement against Anthrax Kernels

On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:24 AM, luke.leighton <luke.leighton@...il.com> wrote:
>  it does in some ways.  it doesn't answer the specific question, "how
> do i formally get my copyright announcement updated in the linux
> kernel source code" yet though but it does provide some opportunity to
> point out some errors and mis-... mis-somethings, i can't think of the
> exact word.

  You submit a patch which will be peer reviewed, and will be rejected
I suspect.

>  interesting.  this statement completely and utterly misses the point.
>  it assumes that "the kernel" and "the license" are directly and
> irrevocably linked.  which they most certainly are not.

  .......  Yes they are.  You only have the code due to the license,
and once licences, the license cannot be terminated (the irrevocable
part)

> which, again is mis-leading - in this case very very badly - because
> it implies that somehow just because *most* of the files are under one
> license, therefore automatically people should not make their *own*
> mind - their own free and conscious choice - to release their
> contributions under alternative licenses.

  Do you have ANY idea what your talking about?  As this point, it
seems like your just making stuff up for the sake of the argument.

>  "we the major linux copyright holders, who wrote this documentation,
> respect your decision to choose an additional license as well as the
> GPLv2 to release your code under, and it is important to make it clear
> that we do not seek to influence your right to choose an additional
> license or licenses, one way or the other.  the key to remember is
> that any files released under licenses *not* compatible with the GPLv2
> *CANNOT* legally be used.
> as the kernel is an aggregated work, over
> time the accumulation of files under alternative licenses (those that
> are compatible with the current GPLv2 license) *may* result in a
> useful and useable subset of the linux kernel source files coming
> about.  so our personal opinion here - which should in no way
> influence your own decisions - is that you are pissing in the wind if
> you think that's going to come about any time soon, and as a result of
> that, we (the major linux copyright holders who wrote this
> documentation) decided not to bother releasing our contributions under
> any license other than the GPLv2."

  Nothing stops anyone from releasing their files all by themselves
under whatever license they choose.  However incompatible dual
licenses would end up not being accepted, and not becoming part of
Linux.

  Thomas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/