1 |
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: |
2 |
> On Sunday 27 May 2007, Isidore Ducasse <ducasse.isidore@×××××.com> wrote |
3 |
> about 'Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Sun and GPL': |
4 |
>> Or did you mean dual-licensing GPLv2 |
5 |
>> and GPLv3? |
6 |
> |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Still, dual-licensing under incompatible licenses is fine and I think many |
9 |
> (but maybe not most) developers that currently license their code under |
10 |
> GPLv2 will be willing to license under the GPLv3 as well (or instead). |
11 |
> |
12 |
|
13 |
Note that while you can dual-license on ANY licenses you want (say the |
14 |
MS EULA and the GPLv3, for example), you can't just change licenses |
15 |
(even to add a new one) without the permission of the copyright holder. |
16 |
|
17 |
So, Duncan's idea of dual-licensing the kernel under GPL v2/v3 until all |
18 |
bits of kernel code written by non-agreeing parties are removed would |
19 |
not work. |
20 |
|
21 |
The issue isn't one of "adding restrictions", but basic copyright law. |
22 |
Distributing copyrighted software is illegal - unless you have a |
23 |
license. The copyright holder gets to pick the license. I can't take |
24 |
my copy of MS Windows and decide to dual-license it as BSD, although |
25 |
Microsoft could (assuming they fully own the copyrights). In the same |
26 |
way, Linus can't just release the whole kernel as GPL v2/v3 unless all |
27 |
the copyright holders agree. |
28 |
|
29 |
He probably could make it dual license on a module-by-module basis. |
30 |
Some modules would be GPLv2, and some would be GPL v2/v3 (both have to |
31 |
be supported to allow linking with GPLv2 code). Other GPLv3 projects |
32 |
could then borrow code from the dual-licensed modules, although those |
33 |
modules could not borrow code from GPL v3 projects, as they have to |
34 |
retain the v2 license. In practice none of the benefits of v3 would be |
35 |
available until the whole module is cleaned of v2-only code, at which |
36 |
point they could drop v2 and be v3-clean (and hopefully they'll make it |
37 |
v3+ this time). |
38 |
|
39 |
Things are much cleaner for the FSF - they hold the copyrights on all |
40 |
their code, so they can license things any way they want. That requires |
41 |
a bit of trust to work, and I'm not sure it is the best model. Sure, |
42 |
with RS in charge I'm not worried, but nobody lives forever... |