On Monday 28 May 2007, Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Sun and GPL': > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > On Sunday 27 May 2007, Isidore Ducasse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote > > about 'Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Sun and GPL': > Note that while you can dual-license on ANY licenses you want (say the > MS EULA and the GPLv3, for example), you can't just change licenses > (even to add a new one) without the permission of the copyright holder.
Yes, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. > So, Duncan's idea of dual-licensing the kernel under GPL v2/v3 until all > bits of kernel code written by non-agreeing parties are removed would > not work. Right, but Linus could take the stance that all new submission have to be licenced (to him) under GPLv2/GPLv3 and then one there's no GPLv2-only code left, release a kernel under GPLv3. Until the point where there's no GPLv2 only code, Linus could only release the whole work under GPLv2, but everyone would know the transition was in the works. > Things are much cleaner for the FSF - they hold the copyrights on all > their code, so they can license things any way they want. Things will also be nicer under the GPLv3, because they've extended optional "or any greater version published by the FSF" to be an optional "or any license approved by <foo>" where <foo> could be Linus Torvalds, X.org, or the Gentoo Foundation. > That requires > a bit of trust to work, and I'm not sure it is the best model. Sure, > with RS in charge I'm not worried, but nobody lives forever... Worst case scenario you fork from the last acceptably licensed version, so as long as the present license is perpetual and non-revocable then you are fine. IIRC, the GPLv2 is perpetual but revocable, but only if you violate it (for ANY content) in the first place. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
