lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Would like to form a pool of Linux copyright holders for faster GPL enforcement against Anthrax Kernels
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 2:34 PM, luke.leighton <luke.leighton@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Jonas Gorski
> <jonas.gorski+gpl@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But dual license means the license taker may chose which license to
>> apply, not that you can dictate which one to use.
>
> yes.
>
>> And as long as any
>> part of the kernel is GPLv2 (no +), (s)he can't choose anything except
>> GPLv2, as GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible.
>
> that doesn't sound right. actually, this is a very very important
> misunderstanding, jonas.
>
> you *can* choose GPLv3 code. what you can choose is: *only* those
> files of the linux kernel that are released under GPLv3.
>
>
> pseudo-algorithm in bash script and maybe a bit of python:
>
> $ filenames_gplv3 = `find . | xargs grep -l GPLv3`
> $ filenames_gplv2 = `find . | xargs grep -l GPLv2`
> $ files_to_delete = []
> $ for x in filenames_gplv2:
> if x not in filenames_gplv2:
> files_to_delete.append(x)
> $ for x in files_to_delete:
> rm $x
>
> after that procedure is done, _then_ try doing a kernel compile, see
> how far you get.

This will produce an empty directory.

There are 0 files released under GPLv3 (because its incompatible with
GPLv2). There are some release under GPLv2+, but this is mostly
drivers and architecture specific code, and a collection of drivers
does not make a kernel.

Almost nothing of the parts that define a kernel (like memory and
process management) are GPLv2+. Therefore I say the kernel will always
be GPLv2, no matter how many files you *add* that are GPLv2+.

> many people point out that just because this is unlikely to result in
> success any time in the next 100 years, that nobody should bother even
> starting.

Because Linus /is/ the highest authority regarding Linux. He holds the
copyright to the most crucial parts, and without his cooperation, you
will never get the GPLv2 parts to be re-licensed to GPLv2+, unless you
remove everything from him and replace it with your own
implementations. And do the same with every other contributors' code
who doesn't agree to switch to GPLv2+.

>> So any further licenses will never apply to any use in the kernel.
>
> incorrect!! logical assertion error!! :) assert(ELOGICALCONCLUSIONBRAINFART)
>
>> Only if somebody took your code out of the kernel and used it in a
>> separate GPLv3+ project, then the GPLv3+ license could and would
>> apply.
>
> after reviewing the above pseudo-code i believe you'll agree that
> that's slightly misleading. one could also choose to leave the files
> in-place in the *same* project's source tree, and just not use any of
> the ones that were incompatibly-licensed.

Have fun with that. That isn't a kernel any more, that's a loose
collection of drivers and architecture support code.

You will have to re-invent every GPLv2 only part they link
against/require, or rewrite the GPLv2+ code to not use it. And if you
finally got it to work, it has already become a separate project as it
won't have much resemblance with the Linux kernel any more. ;-)

Also no company will ever bother to do that, because choosing GPLv3
will only bring disadvantages to them. And writing their own kernel/OS
will likely be less work and more rewarding, because then they own the
copyright for it and can choose any license they want.


Jonas


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-05-19 15:41    [W:0.789 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site