Re: Would like to form a pool of Linux copyright holders for faster GPL enforcement against Anthrax Kernels

[Phil Turmel <philip@turmel.org>]

On 05/19/2013 06:57 AM, luke.leighton wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Ian Stirling <gplvio@mauve.plus.com> wrote:
>> On 18.05.2013 19:27, luke.leighton wrote:
>>
>>> question: what is the procedure for having that licensing explicitly
>>> added to the linux kernel sources?

[snip license compatibility argument /]

>  i don't give a fuck about what anybody else may choose; i do not give
> a fuck about the timescales. i want *MY* choice to be respected: *MY*
> code contributions under the GPLv2 and GPLv3+ and have that properly
> recorded.

You seem to be under some misunderstanding about the kernel community's
obligations to you.  Their only obligation is to respect your copyright
as you submitted your changes.  (Signed-off-by === GPLv2 compatible).
The GPL is designed for its provisions to take effect at the point of
distribution.

Each contributor is choosing to publish/distribute through Linus.  Linus
chooses to publish/distribute via kernel.org under the trademarked name
"Linux".  Most distributions publish their own kernels, but choose to
base them on Linus' kernel for economies of scale.

If you don't like what any of the above choose to publish/distribute,
you may publish/distribute the code yourself, provided you respect the
other contributors' licenses.

>  so.  could someone please inform me what the procedure is: is it as
> simple as submitting a patch?

You can submit a patch.  The kernel community is not obligated to accept
it.  If you want to be sure your license choice is "properly recorded",
publish it yourself.

Phil