Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Sun and GPL

[Richard Freeman <rich@thefreemanclan.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2134 bytes --]

Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Sunday 27 May 2007, Isidore Ducasse <ducasse.isidore@gmail.com> wrote 
> about 'Re: [gentoo-amd64]  Re: Sun and GPL':
>> Or did you mean dual-licensing GPLv2 
>> and GPLv3?
> 
> 
> Still, dual-licensing under incompatible licenses is fine and I think many 
> (but maybe not most) developers that currently license their code under 
> GPLv2 will be willing to license under the GPLv3 as well (or instead).
> 

Note that while you can dual-license on ANY licenses you want (say the 
MS EULA and the GPLv3, for example), you can't just change licenses 
(even to add a new one) without the permission of the copyright holder.

So, Duncan's idea of dual-licensing the kernel under GPL v2/v3 until all 
bits of kernel code written by non-agreeing parties are removed would 
not work.

The issue isn't one of "adding restrictions", but basic copyright law. 
Distributing copyrighted software is illegal - unless you have a 
license.  The copyright holder gets to pick the license.  I can't take 
my copy of MS Windows and decide to dual-license it as BSD, although 
Microsoft could (assuming they fully own the copyrights).   In the same 
way, Linus can't just release the whole kernel as GPL v2/v3 unless all 
the copyright holders agree.

He probably could make it dual license on a module-by-module basis. 
Some modules would be GPLv2, and some would be GPL v2/v3 (both have to 
be supported to allow linking with GPLv2 code).  Other GPLv3 projects 
could then borrow code from the dual-licensed modules, although those 
modules could not borrow code from GPL v3 projects, as they have to 
retain the v2 license.  In practice none of the benefits of v3 would be 
available until the whole module is cleaned of v2-only code, at which 
point they could drop v2 and be v3-clean (and hopefully they'll make it 
v3+ this time).

Things are much cleaner for the FSF - they hold the copyrights on all 
their code, so they can license things any way they want.  That requires 
a bit of trust to work, and I'm not sure it is the best model.  Sure, 
with RS in charge I'm not worried, but nobody lives forever...

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3875 bytes --]