[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Linux kernel complete licence check, Q.12

On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 10:08, Henning Makholm wrote:

> > All portions of governed files not labeled otherwise are owned by Hans
> > Reiser, and by adding your code to it, widely distributing it to
> > others or sending us a patch, and leaving the sentence in stating that
> > licensing is governed by the statement in this file, you accept this.
> Adding things to the files without due notice of the change is
> *forbidden* by the GPL. Essentially this notice seems to say that you
> get the *additional* right to do such additions if you transfer your
> copyright to Hans Reiser. Formally that amounts to a dual-licensing
> scheme which is fine by the DFSG as long as one of the alternatives
> (i.e. GPL) is free.

This is somewhat bogus.  Reiser demands a specific form for the change
notices required by GPL (2)(a) -- you have to remove a sentence.  And
this is certainly a requirement in addition to the GPL, which conflicts
with section (6).

Fortunately, this doesn't actually work in the US.  You can't transfer
copyright implicitly in the US -- you need signed paperwork (17 USC 204

-Dave Turner                        Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
"Once a man has tasted freedom he will never be content to 
be a slave." - Walt Disney

Reply to: