[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [gNewSense-users] KFV check-in

From: Luis Alberto Guzmán García
Subject: Re: [gNewSense-users] KFV check-in
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:12:07 -0600

I totally agree :)

El sáb, 05-04-2008 a las 00:17 -0400, Kevin Dean escribió:
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:24 PM, Bake Timmons <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > I'm a little confused about this write the author business. Because the
> >  > GPL (and the LGPL) say that if no version is specified then it can use
> >  > any of them, it seems to me that that is kind of like specifying a
> >  > version. For example, if I wanted to write code that could be used with
> >  > any version of the GPL, I might choose to not specify the version. And
> >  > if we do contact the author and he gives us the version, we can publish
> >  > it, but it still won't be in the original code. If he can just decide
> >  > whenever he's asked, couldn't he change his mind later?
> >  > Anyway, I'd be happy to email the authors if that's what we want to do.
> >
> >  I think it's *understandable* why some people may want to write the
> >  author, but it hardly seems *necessary* in the circumstance we are
> >  discussing.  Recall Torvalds's written notice:
> >
> >  "Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
> >  is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
> >  v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated."
> Herein lies the problem. In general, once can assume that anything in
> the kernel is LIKELY to be under GPL v2 but that requires the
> presumption that is not voilating the GPL, which they may
> be. Whatvever Linus might say, he is NOT the author of the ENTIRE
> kernel so his opinion on what license some code is licensed under is
> as valid as yours or Bill Gates's. Only the author, or more
> specifically the copyright holder, can license software. We've found
> very CLEAR cases where the copyright holder says "This is not GPL" so
> we must assume that unlicensed code (unless CLEARLY written by Linus)
> is NOT GPL until the author/copyright holder specifies that to us.
> >
> >  "Under the GPL" is not an explicit statement of a version, so v2 applies
> >  to such a file as long as it is being considered part of the kernel,
> >  i.e., for our KFV purposes.  Whatever the author may tell us must be
> >  compatible with this choice, assuming the context of the Linux kernel.
> >  I.e., I cannot imagine how the author, if asked to mention a *specific*
> >  version, could say anything other than v2, unless the files are to be
> >  distributed *apart* from the kernel.
> The author's word is 100% "fact", even if this word is "Not GPL". Only
> the copyright holder can license software, so if she were to say "GPL
> version 1" or "GPL version 3" that is binding. Of course, if either
> happened, we'd have a very odd situation on our hands. It is logical
> to assume that if all the terms of the license are met, it is GPL v2,
> but assuming that without clarification means we could be violating
> the author's wishes and in some places, violating copyright law. Its
> is best to ask for clarification and remove a driver than violate the
> GPL, use an authors code against their wishes and possibly violate
> law.
> All respect to those managing kernels for other reasons, but the goal
> of gNewSense is to ensure all users have freedom - it is NOT to ensure
> the "Highest compatibility".
> >
> >  Another way to see that writing to the author is not necessary is to
> >  consider that KFV is not about documenting how the files might be
> >  distributed *outside the kernel*.  Therefore, KFV is not subject to the
> >  only place where the GPL (versions 1 and 2 at least) addresses "writing
> >  to the author":
> >
> >  "If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs
> >  whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask
> >  for permission."
> Taken entirely out of context, this may not be a bar. The software I
> write has a note similar to this. My reasoning is pretty simple. I
> don't want my work to be barred from OpenBSD or FreeBSD, so I make a
> note that should someone need a specific Free Software license to
> contact me so that they may use it in a ISC or BSD licensed work.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  gNewSense-users mailing list
> >  address@hidden
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> gNewSense-users mailing list
> address@hidden
Luis A. Guzmán García
Colaborador/Usuario gNewSense
Sitio Web
GPG: 9E90 7F23 30E4 EF95 C083  3D0C F467 5D3A [D563 8403]

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]