Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

[Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net>]

On Friday 15 June 2007 12:22:16 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:45:43AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Carlo Wood wrote:
<snip>
> > The way "collective works" work, there are two separate copyrights: there
> > is the copyright in the "separate contribution", which is vests
> > ininitally in the author of that contribution (unless he signs over his
> > copyrights, often by virtue of working for somebody else).
> >
> > And then there is the copyright in the "collective work", which would be
> > me.
> >
> > Of course, owning coyright in the "collective work" doesn't actually give
> > me complete control anyway. I cannot relicense things in ways that go
> > against the rules of the individual works. But in a very real sense, yes,
> > I actually do own a certain (*limited*) copyright over even the parts
> > that have not been explicitly signed over to me.
> >...
>
> Does this include GPLv2'ed code not intended to be used in the Linux
> kernel submitted by people other than the copyright holder for inclusion
> in the Linux kernel?
>
> If yes, the FSF has exactly the same rights if taking a GPLv2 driver
> from the Linux kernel and including it in GNU Hurd.

Of course they do. That is defined by the license. They can include it with 
HURD, but that doesn't give them copyright to it, just the right to exercise 
the rights granted by the license.


DRH

>
> > 				Linus
>
> cu
> Adrian



-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.