[lkml]   [1998]   [Dec]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Article: IBM wants to "clean up the license" of Linux

    In message <>, Alan Cox writes:

    > > > AFAIR that statement is recommended to append to your program's
    > > > source and/or display. If you say "This program is GPL version 2
    > > > period" I believe it is then GPL 2 period, regardless of wether a
    > > > 3 comes out. Richard, do you care to clarify this?
    > >
    > > I don't even see how this can be legal. As far as I know no contract
    > > or license can make you agree to something that has not yet been
    > > written.
    > Yawn . Read the entire document carefully before making statements. Its quite
    > clear about when it applies and you having the right to opt out.

    I have read it, and I still think it is at least inconsistent.

    Also, I was commenting on the idea that a new license can be applied
    to without the owner's consent. I don't think that is legal.
    If the GPL does that, it can't be legal. If it doesn't, then fine.

    It's not totally clear or people would not argue about it so much.
    I've talked to people after they read it, and they aren't sure
    about it.

    In some ways, I wish it would get tested in court just to see how
    things go.

    Shannon - -
    "An Irishman is never drunk as long as he can hold onto one blade
    of grass and not fall off the face of the earth."

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [W:0.028 / U:12.452 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site