[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Benjamin A'Lee wrote: > On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 10:35:11PM +0000, Ben Goodger wrote: >> On 03/02/07, David Johnson <dj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> * IF significant parts of GNU/Linux get relicensed under GPLv3; >> >> Linux cannot realistically be relicensed. There are far too many people to >> seek approval from, and many of them are dead. I'm not sure who holds the >> copyrights to GNU, but presuming it's not entirely the FSF then GNU will not >> be totally relicensed either. Much (most?) GNU software is copyright the FSF, and they will presumably expect all those projects to distribute their code under GNU GPL v3 when it is finalised (next month?!). Some big parts of the GNU project are licenced under the LGPL (GNOME and libc for example), but at current drafts the same (new) rules apply to these. Third party projects which use the GNU GPL may also chose to use the v3 license. There is no requirement on GNU project contributors to assign the copyright to the FSF, but it is the preferred approach, since the FSF can then enforce license infringements directly (and relicence the code under GPL v3 only if they choose). I'd expect a substantial proportion of new revisions of GNU source code to be under GPL v3 restrictions by this time next year. But GNU isn't a monolithic system, like the kernel, so individual components can be relicensed as they are updated, and new components may be GPL v3 only from the get go. As such being in a situation where you couldn't comply with GPL v3 would be a very bad place for a business that claims that distributing "Linux" is at the core of its IT strategy. It is conceivable that a company in such a situation would fork each project, but I don't think this is a sustainable strategy. Even if they maintained v2 versions and made improvements to those, the licence would likely say "v2 or v3", so people could take those improvements into the v3 only code base. i.e. The company would be competing against people using the GPL v3 in much the same way the GPL was invented to stop you competing against people turning your free software proprietary. I have no idea if this situation applies to Novell. I would assume their lawyers would have considered this before signing a deal that might limit their ability to compete in the Linux market, since the likely terms of the GPL v3 were clear at the point this was agreed. I suspect there are ways around such restrictions, such as shipping key components into a different legal entity. I note Microsoft seems not to ship any GPLed code any more, but their website is full of links to third party GPLed tools distributed by others. > Most GNU software is licenced under "GPLv2 or later" This clause is "at your option", so someone violating clauses in v3 of the GPL could still continue to distribute that software under version 2 of the licence. The issue only arises when a new version of the software arrives distributed under version 3 only.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html