Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Dec 1998 01:37:57 -0500 | From | Joseph Malicki <> | Subject | Re: Article: IBM wants to "clean up the license" of Linux |
| |
At 03:58 PM 98/12/29 -0500, C S Hendrix wrote: >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. >
But doesn't having that line in there show consent? The way I read it, if you use that line in your program, you explicitly give consent for GPL v3 to be applied to it, even though you haven't seen it yet. If you don't wish v3 to be able to be applied you can always remove that line. Although if GPL v2 COPYING file says you can apply GPL v3 (I haven't actually read it), then there is no such thing as being GPL v2 only, which although it is definitely a problem, still may be legal...
>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.
That's almost meaningless, as judges vary so much... it would be better to have good IP lawyers look over it.
Joseph Malicki
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |