Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:15:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net> To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Stallman now claims authorship of Linux Message-ID: <20010420013541.P7035-100000@blues.jpj.net> In-Reply-To: <NCBBLIEPOCNJOAEKBEAKEEILOHAA.davids@webmaster.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> > > Except that usually the "original author" can't do that, > > > because he's not > > > the *sole* author. The GPL does *not* reserve to the original author > > > the > > > right to license derived works under alternate terms. It > > > reserves that right > > > solely to the FSF. > > > Just releasing something under the GPL doesn't give the FSF any say over > > what happens to it. That only happens if the author--or > > authors--transfers the copyright to the FSF (something they do > > encourage). > > -- > > Trevor Johnson > > I quote from the GPL: > > If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to > it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and > conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the > Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number > of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free > Software Foundation. > > Note that the GPL *could* very easily have said "or a newer license issued > by the program's original author", and it could have left a slot for the > author to put his name, but it doesn't. The FSP reserves only to itself the > right to change the licensing terms once so many authors get involved that > it's impractical to get them all to agree. This is another right which an author, optionally, can grant to the FSF, and clearly they're encouraging authors to do so. I acknowledge that the wording they chose is misleading. > This became a real issue on at least one occasion that I'm aware of. Linus > Torvalds wanted to allow binary-only distributions of Linux kernel modules, > but due to the structure of the GPL, he lacks the authority to grant that > permission. So whether binary-only distributions of Linux kernel modules are > legal is an open question. Had Mr. Torvalds chosen (or written) a license that could be changed without the agreement of the other contributors, it would surely have a chilling effect on potential contributors who didn't fully trust him, or whoever could change the license. Perhaps that's why he tacked onto the Linux COPYING file the wording: Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ license (ie v2), unless explicitly otherwise stated. -- Trevor Johnson http://jpj.net/~trevor/gpgkey.txt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the messagehelp
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010420013541.P7035-100000>