Re: Linux kernel complete licence check, Q.12
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 17:45, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:54:27PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > 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
> > (a)).
> I respectfully thing you are reading the license all wrong here.
> IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, but here is my reading:
> The files are availabe under GPL, with no limitations.
That's where we disagree. See below.
> The Author makes an additional offer to license the code on
> other terms in exchange for a fee, but only for the portions for
> which he can legally do so.
> The Author makes a non-binding commitment to share the profit
> from such fees with those who explicitly permit their changes to
> be included in such commercial licensing.
> The Author makes a non-binding request, that people who modify
> the code explicitly state the licensing of their changes.
> So far this should not be a problem.
> The Author claims, that if "You" modify a file without deleting
> the reference to the extended license and replacing it with pure
> GPL (or whatever), your changes become subject to the extended
> license which grants the Author the permission to make the code
> available under any license he chooses.
That's not quite correct. He claims that he "owns" it. The only
possible meaning of that is a transfer of copyright. It turns out that
this doesn't actually work, but it's an attempt.
> This is slightly more controversial, but essentially it works
> the same way as LGPL->GPL conversion: If you modify an LGPL file
> without changing the LGPL statement, your are putting your code
> under LGPL (or it is not distributable). However you can change
> the license from LGPL to pure GPL by simply changing the license
Yes, but that's written into the license, while this is tacked on in a
random separate file.
> This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings,
> do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may
> indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue.
> Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
"Once a man has tasted freedom he will never be content to
be a slave." - Walt Disney