gpl backlash?

[Seth David Schoen]

Matthew C. Weigel writes:

> 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.

_If_ Linus is allowed to modify the GPL, and actually did so (or if he
modified it despite being forbidden to do so).

It's not totally obvious that the sentence there is intended to be "part
of the license", as opposed to a non-binding observation by Linus, or an
expression of his wishes.

> > (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.

_If_ Linus is allowed to modify the GPL, and actually did so (or if he
modified it despite being forbidden to do so).

> > (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..."

They're not authorized, so far as we can tell from what's stated in
public:

	Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. [...]
	Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
	of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

It's possible that the FSF explicitly gave Linus permission to modify
the GPL, but we don't have any way of knowing that.

> > (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?

Each of these possibilities, (1) through (4), is meant to be mutually
exclusive with all the others.

The "mistake" would be if fair use allows Linus to modify the GPL by
adding to it (as opposed to "mere aggregation" with another, separate
license :-) additional terms or permissions, since Stallman certainly
did _not_ want people to be able to do so as a general rule.  In that
case, Stallman's claim that "changing it is not allowed" is not
correct, and this would be the "mistake" to which (4) refers.

-- 
                    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)