| 1 |
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Matthias Maier <tamiko@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016, at 09:11 CDT, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under |
| 6 |
>> trademark law than copyright law. That is why the FSF publishes the |
| 7 |
>> "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and not just the "GENERAL PUBLIC |
| 8 |
>> LICENSE." The former has far more trademark protection than the |
| 9 |
>> latter. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> What? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> No, this is *not* how it works. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> A license text is an original piece of work that falls under copyright |
| 16 |
> protection. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
We're not talking about the text of the license in the paragraph |
| 19 |
above. We're talking about the title of the license. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> In this case the copyright holder is the |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> »The Linux Foundation and its contributors«. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Well, there is no statement of copyright in this file: |
| 26 |
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
But, I don't dispute that the Linux Foundation and its contributors |
| 29 |
hold the copyright. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> The terms of distribution are |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> »Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this |
| 35 |
> license document, but changing it is not allowed.« |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
That text does not appear anywhere in the file I linked. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
The GPL does, however. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> You cannot simply copy a substantial amount of text into your work (no |
| 44 |
> matter what it is) if you do not have the right to do so. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
I agree. I certainly wouldn't do it if the Linux Foundation hadn't |
| 48 |
published it under the GPL. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
>> The Linux Foundation published a version of their DCO under the GPL, |
| 51 |
>> which we would of course abide by. |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> I highly doubt that, see my previous e-mail. |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
I just linked it, and it was linked in the draft policy. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
The fact that they published it elsewhere under a different license |
| 59 |
just means that it is effectively dual-licensed. It doesn't diminish |
| 60 |
any rights conferred under the GPL. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
-- |
| 63 |
Rich |
Archives