Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders

From: Marc Perkel
Date: Tue Jan 31 2006 - 20:01:11 EST




Alan Cox wrote:
On Maw, 2006-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
The fact that the COPYING file has a different copyright really doesn't matter. It's still part of the release.

Law is about precision and exact wording as well as intent. The exact
wording is "the Program" not "the release". And Program is capitalised
to indicate the use of the definition made earlier. That is: "The
"Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based
on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under
copyright law"


Actually the law is more precisely about the intent of the people making the license/contract as opposed to the wording. Especially when there is fast moving technology involved. If in 1991 Linus released his software under GPL v2 and the wold changes in 15 years so that words mean things differently than they did then, or newer licenses come out to deal with new issues not contemplated back then, the meaning of the agreement is interpreted on the basis of the intent and not on the exact wording of the contract.

For example. I am a painter and I contract to paint your house white at 123 main street and I show up on the job and your house is really 125 main street and you change your mind and decide to have me paint it yellow and I do that, and then you say you don't owe me because that contract says you agreed to paint 123 main st white and you painted 125 main street yellow - you lose. The intent of the contract was that I paint your house.

The meaning of the Linux license is what Linus intended it to be in 1991 and the way it is used in the following years. People who contribute to the Kernel are presumed to understand the spirit of the project and if their license says something else but they contributed it to the Kernel then they are deamed to have waived their rights by contributing it to the Kernel and accepting the Kernel's license.

I have way too much legal experience for someone who isn't a lawyer, but if you don't believe me print this out and run it past a real lawyer and see if they don't agree. The reality is that the Kernel license it what Linus says it is and we all trust Linus as a condition for contributing to the Kernel.

Having said that, lawyers can argue anything so if the wording and reality were the same it makes it easier. So it is worth it to some extent to clear up issues if we can.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/