linux-kernel - Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

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]

Message-ID: <m33b0w80dg.fsf@maximus.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:11:55 +0200
From:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To:	Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@....de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@....de> writes:

> I want to add my two cents on what I think the legal status of the 
> individual contributions to Linux are. The thing in question is not the 
> GPLv2 itself (which is pretty clear that code without explicit statements 
> is under "any",

That's not exactly true. A work without explicit statements is not
licenced at all.

> This particular comment to how the GPL is applied to the Linux kernel 
> therefore doesn't change the GPL as such

Of course.

> Again: What Linus is entitled to do is to *select* the license under which 
> he redistributes the code downstream.

Sure.

> The GPLv2 however is very clear how the end user gets the license: from the 
> original author.

I'd be surprised if it's for GPL to decide.

> Not from the man in the middle, from a distributor or 
> kernel maintainer, who can neither add nor drop restrictions/permissions 
> (and thus the special rights of a compilation editor are void). The author 
> can only speak for himself, not by behalf of somebody else, as well as the 
> compilation editor.

How about derived works?
Am I free to get BSD source, incorporate it in GPL project, and release
the whole under GPL?
Sure, the original source stays BSD but I don't distribute it.

> That's why the FSF is so strict about having each 
> author stating copyright and the license conditions on the top of the 
> file - nobody else can.

I'm not sure the copyright laws define "files".

> So my conclusion is: If you, as contributor to the Linux kernel, want to 
> make clear that your work really is GPLv2 only, you have to do that 
> yourself, you have to add a notice like above to files where you 
> exclusively own copyright.

I don't think the law works like that.
By default you have no rights to someone's work (file or project).
The only licence I can find with Linux is GPL v2, isn't it? And even
that wasn't stated explicite until that 2.4.0something (though there
is a consensus that the COPYING file was indeed a licence for the
whole kernel).

Then you may have additional rights, such as those given in various
source files.

> The rest (the majority) did not 
> choose to say anything, which under the GPL regime means "any";

What exactly is the "GPL regime" and how is it defined by copyright
law and/or the GPL licence itself (or will of copyright holders etc.)?
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
-
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/