[OffTopic] Evil GPL v3?
Gregory Maxwell (linker@z.ml.org)
Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:43:55 -0500 (EST)
On 27 Dec 1998, Zack Brown wrote:
[snip]
> Exactly! Here is the scenario: The FSF releases a GPL v.3 which allows
> proprietary forking. Someone at IBM downloads any version of the kernel and
> whatever other GPLed software they please, and use the "at your option"
> clause to accept the licencing of the software under v. 3 of the GPL. At
> that point, since they have the legal right to do so under v. 3, they do
> their proprietary fork of all that code, and bingo! proprietary linux! Of
> course, in that scenario they can't stop people from working on the
> nonproprietary versions, but they would certainly be legally able to
> distribute binary-only releases and not share the source of their
> modifications or even the original code. It would be a completely legal,
> closed-source version of the entire linux/gnu/etc OS, with no argument at
> all.
[snip]
Okay. So IBM gets the evil GPL v3, but the existing code is still covered
by v2 so IBM gives me the propritary software with the v2 licence (they
can't actually change what licence the code is under) but I choose not to
accept the v3 licence and stay with v2. What now? Does the GPL give legal
recourse to the recipitent when the sender doesn't follow through or must
the orignal author take action?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/