On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:15:16AM +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Under the GPL Having exclusive copyright just means that you can relicense
> later stuff if you want. I'm not clear on why FSF considers it so important
> but for Linux it just means that nobody, not even Linus, can ever release
> under a new license (e.g., the BSD license). So actually, having multiple
> copyright holders is a good thing for you, it protects your investment in GPL
> capital better. I say, if Microsoft employees want to contribute to Linux,
> the more the merrier. Heck, even billg is going to wake up on day (with a
> start, in the middle of the night) and realize which way the wind is blowing.
> Steve Jobs did.
OTOH, having exclusive copyright means you can more successfully defend that
copyright. If someone took a copy of the linux kernel and used it in a
blatently non-GPL compliant way, who could sue?
>From the FSF website: If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work,
successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors.
All the authors of the linux kernel? That would be more difficult than
herding Debian developers.
Since I don't think anyone has registered the copyright for the kernel
no-one would be eligable for statutory damages and actual damages is zero.
The Samba Team ran into exactly this problem. The Linux kernel lucky because
public opinion is in its favour.
Not that I think the FSF's way is necessarily the right way, but it is not
without merit.
-- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Terrorists can only take my life. Only my government can take my freedom. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:18 EST