lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Would like to form a pool of Linux copyright holders for faster GPL enforcement against Anthrax Kernels
From
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:39 AM, luke.leighton <luke.leighton@gmail.com> wrote:
> mr linus torvalds is one person. he is not a god. he does not
> dictate that which everyone else can choose to do. if mr linus
> torvalds is telling everyone "he will not use the GPLv3 for the
> kernel" i.e. NOBODY may dual-license their copyright material in the
> linux kernel then he is *MASSIVELY* overstepping a serious boundary of
> both propriety and copyright law. if i choose to release all
> copyright code under dual licenses then THAT IS MY RIGHT AND NO FUCKER
> IS GOING TO TELL ME OTHERWISE.

Well that's all well and good, but you couldn't place GPLv3 code
into the kernel, soooooooo. There's not much point in dual licensing
it when it could never be utilized in that manner.

> so, let's nip this in the bud and set it straight, ok?
>
> i assume that what mr linus torvalds *meant* to say was "i have some
> code, it is under my copyright. i personally choose not to release
> that copyright material under any license other than the GPLv2 and
> that is my choice and my right as the owner of that copyright
> material. signed, mr linus torvalds".

And gplv3 code would be incompatible with the license, so, no, you
couldn't add code to the Linux kernel under the GPLv3. Write a new
kernel, and go house I suppose.

> that choice - made by mr linus torvalds - has *nothing to do with
> anybody else's choice*.

Except, the Linux kernel is the code we're talking about here. So
yes, their choices on what to do with his code (and many others code)
DOES has something to do with the original authors choice.

> so the question remains, and i'd like an answer: what is the
> procedure for formally adding to the linux kernel that my copyrighted
> material is dual-licensed under both the GPLv2 and the GPLv3+? do i
> submit a patch, and is it as simple as that?

You submit a patch, it is reviewed, and may or may not be included.
And with the GPLv3 provision, it will not be accepted.

> unless.... unless what mr linus torvalds meant to say was, "i don't
> like the GPLv3+ license. if any fucker wants to release linux kernel
> code under the GPLv3+ (as well as the GPLv2), they can fuck off. in
> fact, they will be banned from submitting contributions that are not
> specifically GPLv2. if they try to dual-license their code, it will
> not be accepted. i, linus torvalds, have spoken". which i seriously
> seriously doubt, but there seems to be some implication that that's
> the case, here.

Soooooo, you don't want your code in his kernel then, do you.

> well, it will continue to be "allowed" for many many years, even if
> people dual-license their code in the linux kernel.

*sigh* Point to a single line of GPLv3 code in the current kernel.

--
-- Thomas


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-05-19 20:21    [W:0.237 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site