[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070615003919.1abfb155@the-village.bc.nu>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:39:19 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Carlo Wood <carlo@...noe.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>, david@...g.hm,
Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@...one.net.tr>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
> This is the main reason I dislike GPLwhatever: there is no notion
> of "orginal author". You might have written 99% of the code, that
Every literary work (including thus software) has an author, and that
author has certain rights which are implicit in them being author.
> doesn't matter. You have no rights whatsoever once you release
> something under the GPL (no more than ANYOne else).
Wrong. The author has a collection of rights which vary by jurisdiction
but which are primarily governed by the Berne Convention and its sequels
notably TRIPS.
> The GPL is nice for the community, and for the users - but very,
> very bad towards it's authors (taking all and every right you might
> have). If John Doe wants to re-release the whole kernel under
You must be using a different GPL to the rest of us.
> GPLv3, then all he needs is a website and some bandwidth.
And a very good lawyer (oh and a GPL3 as there isn't one yet...)
Alan
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists