[lkml]   [2004]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.9 and the GPL Buyout
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:

>On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 15:47 -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>>GPL code remains GPL code. Code written and republished under Cherokee
>>Nation Copyrights or Cherokee Nation Public license will become sovereign and
>You probably cannot "republish code under a different license" -
>especially not if it was released under Author's rights (in german:
>"Urheberrecht") which is not uncommon in continental Europe.
>Anf getting rid of the GPL (which your "republish under some new
>license" implies) requires IMO the explicit written agreement of all
>concerned persons.
>BTW the only possibility of getting rid of Author's right is to wait for
>the death of the last author of a given text/music/source code and wait
>than 70 years (as it stands now).
>>under tribal jurisdiction and laws. We are publishing the draft legislation
>So you are simply forking a part of the Linux kernel thus making all of
>the other code inthat project GPL and probably not gaining anything
>Have fun with your Linux kernel fork similar to all other forks ...
> Bernd
A copyright holder can re-release their code under any license they
choose, even if
they have released under GPL previously. This is because GPL code
really isn't free,
it's owned by the copyright holder. And honestly, the way the GPL is
worded it
in fact affects an implied transfer of copyright ownership to whomeve
receives it.

Truly free code isn't copyrighted by any individual, or is copyrighted
by an organization
that uses a license that really is free.

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:0.073 / U:1.804 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site