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! > 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. Having signed a copyright transfer for 'future' changes for gprof, libiberty, readline, zlib, gcc, gdb, libstdc++, bfd, dejagnu, gas, and binutils, Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
