Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 04:24:52 -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: <20010420031221.H7035-100000@blues.jpj.net> In-Reply-To: <NCBBLIEPOCNJOAEKBEAKIEKOOHAA.davids@webmaster.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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. > > Maybe you're not reading what I'm writing. Maybe I'm not being cleaer. > Those first two paragraphs in the 'COPYING' file have *NO* legal import. The one I quoted seems to simply clarify what was already implicit. > Linus had no right to unilaterally modify the licensing agreement under > which Linux was distributed after he had accepted other people's > contributions under the original license. That's probably why he didn't modify it. > If Linux had this right, so did > any other contributor to the Linux kernel, which would make the GPL > identical to the BSD license! No, the restrictions in the BSD license are different from those in the GPL, and they must not be removed from it without the author's (authors') permission. The BSD PPP code in Linux, for instance, remains under its original license. > So, yes, Linus may have added those two pagagraphs to the licensing file, > but they have no more legal import than if they had been added by any other > person who contributed to the Linux kernel and distributed copies of the > modified version. Certainly, no more and no less. > Again, Linus had no right to modify the license agreement under which Linux > was distributed, that right was reserved for the FSF alone. Saying it > doesn't make it so. 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. What Mr. Torvalds added to the COPYING file emphasises that fact. 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? 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. > Please read the paragraph I wrote that you are responding to one more time. > It responds to your response. Then this would be my response to your response to my response--but hey, who's counting? :) -- Trevor Johnson To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010420031221.H7035-100000>