gpl backlash?

[Seth David Schoen]

John Cowan writes:

> Kyle Rose scripsit:
> 
> > [T]he LGPL, the license under which the major libraries are
> > released, specifically allows non-free programs to link to binaries
> > under that license.
> 
> The kernel, however (which is just another library), is under the GPL.
> I know that Linus explicitly states that the GPL's viral properties
> do not spread from the kernel to user-mode code, but I don't see how that
> can be made consistent with the GPL's claim that "changing it [the GPL]
> is not allowed."

It could be viewed as an additional permission, making Linux dual-licensed,
except that Linus doesn't have authority to grant that permission on behalf
of all of the other developers -- who presumably have the right to assert
that this is either

(1) merely Linus's personal opinion, and factually incorrect; or

(2) merely Linus's personal decision to dual-license _his own_ code, and
therefore not applicable to their own code, which, in compliance with
the terms of the GPL, was released under the GPL (so that Linus lacks
the authority to unilaterally re-license their work); or

(3) a copyright violation on Linus's part, because he made an unauthorized
derived work from the GPL, which is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation; or

(4) a mistake on Richard Stallman's part, because Linus's change to the
GPL is fair use, and not a copyright violation.

(I think most, if not all, people who contribute to the kernel are willing
to accept Linus's judgment on this point, but that doesn't mean that it
might not be an issue in the future.)

-- 
                    Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org>
      They said look at the light we're giving you,  /  And the darkness
      that we're saving you from.   -- Dar Williams, "The Great Unknown"
  http://ishmael.geecs.org/~sigma/  (personal)  http://www.loyalty.org/  (CAF)