Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 05:44:22 -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: <20010420050832.Q7035-100000@blues.jpj.net> In-Reply-To: <NCBBLIEPOCNJOAEKBEAKOELHOHAA.davids@webmaster.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> > The FSF (alone) has the right to publish new versions of the GPL. It > > does > > not have the right to change the one that Linux is under, because the > > authors of Linux, as far as I see from a quick look, did not grant it to > > the FSF. > > But the authors of Linux did give that right to the FSF. Linus attempted to > unilaterally take it away by changing the license under which Linux was > developed. He didn't change the license. > That unilateral license modification has no legal import because > Linus had no right to change the license terms under which derived works > from other authors are distributed. > > And Linux _certainly_ doesn't have the right to grant to others the right > to distribute binary-only works derived from code contributed by others > under the terms of the GPL. No one said he could. > > What Mr. Torvalds added to the COPYING file emphasises that > > fact. > > What Mr. Torvalds added to the COPYING file is ambigous. Sometimes it seems > like he's simply stating his opinion of the licensing terms of Linux, > sometimes it seems like he's setting them. My point is that he has no right > to do either because he ceded that right when he accepted contributions from > others under the unmodified GPL, which he later regretted. > Mr. Torvalds' opinion of the licensing terms are just his opinion. They > have no special legal weight. A written offer, even a supermarket coupon, has legal weight. He's made an offer and "signed" it electronically. In some places, that would be binding. > > Do you perhaps believe--or think that I believe--that by simply > > putting his own words into the same file as the GPL, he has changed it? > > Nope, that's the point. Those words have no legal import. Because Linus > originally GPL'd Linux, it's not clear whether his intention to permit > binary-only kernel modules has legal force. The words he added to the file have nothing to do with binary-only kernel modules. The ones I didn't mention before say: NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it. > > It looks to me as though he just added his notes to the same file for his > > own convenience, to avoid putting them into every little file in his > > project. I don't know whether that takes away their legal force. > > What legal force? If they're his opinion of the license, they have no legal > force. If they're his attempt to set the licensing terms, he has no right to > do so since *he* added those terms to a work of which he was *not* the sole > author. The words I quoted from him just say that GPL version 2--the one under which (I assume) he accepted the contributions--is the only one that applies. It just makes explicit what was already implied. -- Trevor Johnson To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the messagehome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010420050832.Q7035-100000>