gpl backlash?

[Matthew C. Weigel]

On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:

> 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

No, he only has the authority to grant that on the code he originally wrote
-- but that is part of the license, which by the GPL's viral nature ensures
that all code distributed which is a derivative work of the kernel is, then,
under the same license.

> (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

But it wasn't released under the pristine GPL.

> (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

Except that such additions are authorized -- hence it's not "...an
unauthorized derived work..."

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

???  How is it a mistake on RMS' part, even given that your above statements
are true?

> (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.)

See above.

 Matthew Weigel                                       Programmer/Sysadmin
  weigel+ at pitt.edu                             Operating Systems Advocate
                         http://www.pitt.edu/~weigel