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: <200706151651.58033.dhazelton@enter.net>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:51:57 -0400
From:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
To:	Carlo Wood <carlo@...noe.com>
Cc:	Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@....de>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sean <seanlkml@...patico.ca>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	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

On Friday 15 June 2007 09:02:54 Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 06:33:51AM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Incorrect. Read section 9 of the GPLv2. It's pretty clear that the "any
> > later version" clause is optional. Whats more is that since the modern
> > linux kernel *IS* a "composite work" composed of Linus' original code
> > with changes contributed by other people - Linus retains copyright to the
> > work as a whole.
>
> Huh - surely not to files added to the kernel that were written by
> others from scratch!

Even those.

> > This means that he can license it in any manner he chooses, as long as it
> > doesn't affect the copyrights (or licensing) of the people that have
> > contributed changes. I don't have to go to the US copyright law for this
> > - Linus released Linux under the GPL, others made changes and sent them
> > back saying "You let me have access to your code under the GPL, I've made
> > some changes that make it better. You can have my changes under the GPL."
> > QED: Linus still holds copyright to Linux and can license it in any way
> > he chooses.
>
> This is totally new to me - if this is true - I'd really like to be sure!
> I always thought that it would be necessary to get signatures of each
> and every contributor before you can change a license of a file. Why do
> you think that the FSF demands written copyright-transfers with
> signatures before you are allowed to submit a patch to any of their
> largers projects? If they - as original copyright holder - could do
> what you claim - they wouldn't need those signatures.

They don't. They demand the signature so that some contributor can't change 
their mind at a later date or even be able to give a proprietary software 
vendor the ability to use the GPL'd code in a non-GPL project.

> Having signed a copyright transfer for 'future' changes for gprof,
> libiberty, readline, zlib, gcc, gdb, libstdc++, bfd, dejagnu, gas,
> and binutils,
> Carlo Wood <carlo@...noe.com>

DRH

-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
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/