gpl backlash?

[Seth David Schoen]

bruce at perens.com writes:

> From: John Cowan <cowan at locke.ccil.org>
> > I don't see how that can be made consistent with the GPL's claim that
> > "changing it [the GPL] is not allowed."
> 
> Well, if reference to license text was considered derivation this would be a
> problem, but it isn't. Linus put a note before the copyrighted GPL text, he
> did not modify the GPL itself.

Therefore, that note would not be binding on other kernel contributors,
whose code would still be subject to the regular GPL, etc.

	1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
	source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
	conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
	copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
	notices	that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
	and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
	along with the Program.

If Linus "did not modify the GPL itself", then "this License" is the GPL,
not the combination of the GPL with Linus's note, and so the terms
applicable to the use, modification, and distribution of the kernel are
the GPL itself, unless permission from every other contributor is obtained!
Recall:

	5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
	signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
	distribute the Program or its derivative works. [...]

While Linus can grant permission to modify or distribute code to which he
holds the copyright, "nothing else" but "this License" (the presumably
unaltered-by-Linus's-commentary) GPL grants to the general public
permission to modify or distribute the portions of the Linux kernel which
were not written by Linus himself.

What Linus actually said was

	[U]ser programs that use kernel services by normal system calls [are]
	merely considered normal use of the kernel, and [do] *not* fall under
	the heading of "derived work".

It sounds to me as though "merely considered" and "fall under" are a
statement of Linus's opinion of what the _legal_ standard is or reasonably
ought to be, and not any kind of attempt to modify the GPL.  But there
are many possibilities.

-- 
                    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)