Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

493 views
Skip to first unread message

Tarkan Erimer

unread,
Jun 9, 2007, 1:50:09 AM6/9/07
to
Hi,

As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2
and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others,
that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to GPL V3,
it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission who
contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or dead
maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the maintainers'
permission.
But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it
will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other
Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3
and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is applicable,too.

So;at this situation, what is possibility to make the Linux Kernel
Dual-Licensed as I mentioned above and what is your opinions and
suggestions about this idea ?

Regards,

Tarkan Erimer
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majo...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Neil Brown

unread,
Jun 9, 2007, 2:00:16 AM6/9/07
to
On Saturday June 9, tar...@netone.net.tr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2
> and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
> So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others,
> that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to GPL V3,
> it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission who
> contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or dead
> maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the maintainers'
> permission.

You don't need the permission of maintainers. You need the permission
of copyright owners. The two groups overlap, but are not the same.
Dead people cannot own anything, even copyright. Their estate
probably can. I don't think it is theoretically impossible to get
everyone's permission, though it may be quite close to practically
impossible.

> But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it
> will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other
> Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3
> and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is applicable,too.
>
> So;at this situation, what is possibility to make the Linux Kernel
> Dual-Licensed as I mentioned above and what is your opinions and
> suggestions about this idea ?

Dual licensing is no easier. It means it is licensed to be used under
either license. You already have permission to use it under GPLv2.
So to get a dual license, you precisely need to get access under GPLv3
i.e. to convince copyright owners to make that license grant. A thing
that we have already agreed is at least "hard".

NeilBrown

David Schwartz

unread,
Jun 9, 2007, 3:10:10 AM6/9/07
to

> But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it
> will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other
> Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3
> and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is applicable,too.

That is a misleading claim. While being dual-licensed would make it either
for other projects to adopt Linux code, it would have three downsides:

1) If Linux code were adopted into other projects that were not
dual-licensed, changes could not be imported back into Linux unless the
changes were dual-licensed which is not likely when the contributions are
made to a project that's not dual-licensed.

2) Linux could no longer take code from other projects that are GPL v2
licensed unless it could obtain them under a dual license.

And, last and probably most serious:

3) Linux derivatives could be available with just a GPL v3 license and no
GPL v2. license if the derivers wanted things that way.

DS

Jan-Benedict Glaw

unread,
Jun 9, 2007, 3:20:06 AM6/9/07
to
On Sat, 2007-06-09 15:57:55 +1000, Neil Brown <ne...@suse.de> wrote:
> On Saturday June 9, tar...@netone.net.tr wrote:
> > As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2
> > and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
> > So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others,
> > that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to GPL V3,
> > it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission who
> > contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or dead
> > maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the maintainers'
> > permission.
>
> You don't need the permission of maintainers. You need the permission
> of copyright owners. The two groups overlap, but are not the same.
> Dead people cannot own anything, even copyright. Their estate
> probably can. I don't think it is theoretically impossible to get
> everyone's permission, though it may be quite close to practically
> impossible.

And the next question is: How much copyright does a copyright owner
own? For example, think of drivers written by one person, but a small
number of lines changed here and there by others to adopt the code to
new APIs. Ask them all, I think?

MfG, JBG

--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbg...@lug-owl.de +49-172-7608481
Signature of: God put me on earth to accomplish a certain number of
the second : things. Right now I am so far behind I will never die.

signature.asc

Tarkan Erimer

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 4:40:06 AM6/10/07
to
Hi David,

David Schwartz wrote:
>> But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it
>> will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other
>> Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3
>> and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is applicable,too.
>>
>
> That is a misleading claim. While being dual-licensed would make it either
> for other projects to adopt Linux code, it would have three downsides:
>
> 1) If Linux code were adopted into other projects that were not
> dual-licensed, changes could not be imported back into Linux unless the
> changes were dual-licensed which is not likely when the contributions are
> made to a project that's not dual-licensed.
>
> 2) Linux could no longer take code from other projects that are GPL v2
> licensed unless it could obtain them under a dual license.
>
> And, last and probably most serious:
>
> 3) Linux derivatives could be available with just a GPL v3 license and no
> GPL v2. license if the derivers wanted things that way.
>
>

Thanks for the corrections ;-) The whole picture is more clear now for
me :-)
BTW,I found a really interesting blog entry about which code in Linux
Kernel is using which version of GPL :

http://6thsenseless.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-much-linux-kernel-code-is-gpl-2.html

The work done on a Linux 2.6.20. The result is quite interesting.
Because almost half (Around %60 of the code licensed under "GPLv2 Only"
and the rest is "GPLv2 or above","GPL-Version not specified,others that
have not stated which and what version of License has been used) of the
code is "GPLv2 or above" licensed. And also stated in the article that
some of the codes should be "Dual Licensed" not the whole Linux kernel
needed to be "Dual Licensed". So,if it is really like this, maybe we can
make,for example: "File system related Codes", "Dual Licensed" and it
will allow us to port ZFS from OpenSolaris requested by a lot of people
or other things maybe ?

Tarkan Erimer

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 4:50:05 AM6/10/07
to
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-06-09 15:57:55 +1000, Neil Brown <ne...@suse.de> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday June 9, tar...@netone.net.tr wrote:
>>
>>> As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2
>>> and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
>>> So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others,
>>> that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to GPL V3,
>>> it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission who
>>> contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or dead
>>> maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the maintainers'
>>> permission.
>>>
>> You don't need the permission of maintainers. You need the permission
>> of copyright owners. The two groups overlap, but are not the same.
>> Dead people cannot own anything, even copyright. Their estate
>> probably can. I don't think it is theoretically impossible to get
>> everyone's permission, though it may be quite close to practically
>> impossible.
>>
>
> And the next question is: How much copyright does a copyright owner
> own? For example, think of drivers written by one person, but a small
> number of lines changed here and there by others to adopt the code to
> new APIs. Ask them all, I think?
>
> MfG, JBG
>
>

And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can
hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders at
this point for copyright holding ?

Message has been deleted

Jan Engelhardt

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 5:10:07 AM6/10/07
to

On Jun 10 2007 11:37, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>
> Thanks for the corrections ;-) The whole picture is more clear now for me :-)
> BTW,I found a really interesting blog entry about which code in Linux Kernel is
> using which version of GPL :
>
> http://6thsenseless.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-much-linux-kernel-code-is-gpl-2.html

You've got to take MODULE_LICENSE() into account. There is

MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL and additional rights");
MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL");
MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MIT/GPL");
MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MPL/GPL");

I think it's time to set things right, making

* MODULE_LICENSE the authoritative place for the license
(also makes it easier to grep for)

* sync up license into MODULE_LICENSE

Jan
--

Simon Arlott

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 5:20:08 AM6/10/07
to
On 10/06/07 09:37, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> BTW,I found a really interesting blog entry about which code in Linux
> Kernel is using which version of GPL :
>
> http://6thsenseless.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-much-linux-kernel-code-is-gpl-2.html
>
>
> The work done on a Linux 2.6.20. The result is quite interesting.
> Because almost half (Around %60 of the code licensed under "GPLv2 Only"
> and the rest is "GPLv2 or above","GPL-Version not specified,others that
> have not stated which and what version of License has been used) of the
> code is "GPLv2 or above" licensed. And also stated in the article that
> some of the codes should be "Dual Licensed" not the whole Linux kernel
> needed to be "Dual Licensed". So,if it is really like this, maybe we can
> make,for example: "File system related Codes", "Dual Licensed" and it
> will allow us to port ZFS from OpenSolaris requested by a lot of people
> or other things maybe ?

Once code obtained under the GPLv2 only licence that the kernel is released
under is modified and submitted back to Linus for inclusion, that code
would become GPLv2 only - only the original would be BSD/LGPL/GPLv2+ and
only separate changes to the original could continue to be available under
dual licence. Since most files will have been modified at various stages
in Linux's development when major internal changes occur, surely practically
everything is now GPLv2 only?


> So, does it mean we can change the license of the dead people's code ?

If you can contact whoever currently owns the copyright, they can release
it under another licence... however this is no good because the derivative
work would be GPLv2 only. Perhaps if you got *everyone* at all stages of
development (including code that has been removed if existing code is a
derivative work of it) to agree - then it could work.

It only takes one person's code, uncooperative or not contactable, to
prevent a change to the licence, so there's not much point in trying
unless you intend to start replacing such code.


On 10/06/07 10:03, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> You've got to take MODULE_LICENSE() into account. There is
>
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL and additional rights");
> MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL");
> MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MIT/GPL");
> MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MPL/GPL");

Surely that doesn't work since the entire Linux kernel is (and can only be)
released as GPLv2? Wouldn't anyone making changes to those files need to
obtain a copy under the other licence and explicitly release it under both
licenses in order to maintain that?

--
Simon Arlott

Neil Brown

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 5:50:07 AM6/10/07
to
On Sunday June 10, tar...@netone.net.tr wrote:
> Hi Neil,

>
> Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Saturday June 9, tar...@netone.net.tr wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2
> >> and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
> >> So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others,
> >> that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to GPL V3,
> >> it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission who
> >> contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or dead
> >> maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the maintainers'
> >> permission.
> >>
> >
> > You don't need the permission of maintainers. You need the permission
> > of copyright owners. The two groups overlap, but are not the same.
> > Dead people cannot own anything, even copyright. Their estate
> > probably can. I don't think it is theoretically impossible to get
> > everyone's permission, though it may be quite close to practically
> > impossible.
> >
> >
> So, does it mean we can change the license of the dead people's code ?
>

I presume the heirs of the dead people could change the license. And
if they have no heir, then there is no-one to sue for breach of
copyright, so I assume the copyright lapses.

And I wouldn't be surprised if there were some legal precedent that
allowed for some process whereby we could make a "best effort" to
contact copyright holders (including registered paper letters and
entries in the "Public Notices" section of major newspapers) and if
no-one stepped forward to claim copyright in a reasonable period of
time we could assume that the copyright had lapsed. But you would
need to ask a lawyer, and it would be different in different
countries.

But I think this is largely academic. You only need a fairly small
number of fairly significant contributors to say "no" and the rest of
the process would be pointless. And at last count, the number of
kernel people who were not keen on GPLv3 was fairly high. Of course
no-one knows for certain yet what the final GPLv3 will be, and maybe
lots of people would change their mind when it comes out.

There would certainly be value in a straw-pole once GPLv3 was out and
had been discussed for a while - to see if a license change to GPLv3
would be accepted by a majority of current developers. Doing that
would at least provide a clear statistic to point people at.

Tarkan Erimer

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 6:10:07 AM6/10/07
to
da...@lang.hm wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>
>> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:43:28 +0300
>> From: Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>
>> To: linux-...@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
> I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years.
>
> David Lang
Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better idea
to replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting
such 90+ years!

da...@lang.hm

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 6:10:08 AM6/10/07
to
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:

>> > And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can
>> > hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
>> > copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders at
>> > this point for copyright holding ?
>>
>> I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years.
>>
>> David Lang
> Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better idea to
> replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting such 90+
> years!

exactly, however as others are pointing out, there are a lot of active
developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3
(including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is better it
really doesn't matter how hard it is to deal with the people who you can't
contact.

David Lang

debian developer

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 7:00:17 AM6/10/07
to
On 6/10/07, da...@lang.hm <da...@lang.hm> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>
> >> > And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can
> >> > hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
> >> > copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders at
> >> > this point for copyright holding ?
> >>
> >> I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years.
> >>
> >> David Lang
> > Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better idea to
> > replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting such 90+
> > years!
>
> exactly, however as others are pointing out, there are a lot of active
> developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3
> (including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is better it

Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of
the final draft of GPLv3. I think Linus, and other major developers
should make their stand on this issue clear so that the kernel
community can discuss the future steps.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Daniel Hazelton

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 9:10:06 AM6/10/07
to
On Sunday 10 June 2007 08:45:41 Jiri Kosina wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
> > I presume the heirs of the dead people could change the license. And if
> > they have no heir, then there is no-one to sue for breach of copyright,
> > so I assume the copyright lapses.
>
> In most of the law systems out there the copyright stays valid for 70
> years (or so) after the holder's death.

I'm almost certain that it is the same in the US, not the death+90 previously
stated. (I've read the copyright laws a number of times to deal with some
involved conversations) In some of the writings tied the change that made it
death+70 its stated that said change was made to "bring US laws in line with
Europe and most of the rest of the world" (paraphrase - I didn't bother going
and digging out the page again). It's a relatively common belief - and, IIRC,
was even brought before the US Supreme Court - that the copyrights length was
changed to give Disney longer protection, if just because a lot of Disney's
copyrights were going to expire and the change was applied retroactively.
(And, unsurprisingly, the suit was shot down - 70 years is still a "limited"
period. However, IIRC, there was some noted concern by the Supreme Court that
the US Congress would exploit the legal loophole and just keep extending the
copyright period retroactively to make it, effectively, never-ending. That
scenario, while not *technically* in violation of the language of the US
Constitution (which grants the US Congress the power to set the length of
copyrights) would violate the spirit of it)

DRH

Alan Cox

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 9:40:08 AM6/10/07
to
> But I think this is largely academic. You only need a fairly small
> number of fairly significant contributors to say "no" and the rest of
> the process would be pointless. And at last count, the number of
> kernel people who were not keen on GPLv3 was fairly high. Of course
> no-one knows for certain yet what the final GPLv3 will be, and maybe
> lots of people would change their mind when it comes out.

You can take a fair bet someone will say no, or much more likely they or
whoever inherited their copyright will say $50,000

Adrian Bunk

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 9:40:09 AM6/10/07
to
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 07:36:39PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
>...

> And I wouldn't be surprised if there were some legal precedent that
> allowed for some process whereby we could make a "best effort" to
> contact copyright holders (including registered paper letters and
> entries in the "Public Notices" section of major newspapers) and if
> no-one stepped forward to claim copyright in a reasonable period of
> time we could assume that the copyright had lapsed. But you would
> need to ask a lawyer, and it would be different in different
> countries.
>...

A legal precedent valid in all jurisdictions?

Harald suceessfully takes legal actions against people violating his
copyright on the Linux kernel under the terms of the GPL in Germany at
German courts based on German laws.

If someone finds any legal precedent in Finland or the USA or Russia
that some copyright would have lapsed for some reason, would this have
any legal effect in Germany?

> NeilBrown

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Daniel Hazelton

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 10:00:14 AM6/10/07
to
On Sunday 10 June 2007 09:40:23 Alan Cox wrote:
> > But I think this is largely academic. You only need a fairly small
> > number of fairly significant contributors to say "no" and the rest of
> > the process would be pointless. And at last count, the number of
> > kernel people who were not keen on GPLv3 was fairly high. Of course
> > no-one knows for certain yet what the final GPLv3 will be, and maybe
> > lots of people would change their mind when it comes out.
>
> You can take a fair bet someone will say no, or much more likely they or
> whoever inherited their copyright will say $50,000

I seeds shades of Merkey there :P

Seriously, though, this was all settled a long time ago. Linus said "While
individual parts of the kernel *could* be licensed [with another license] the
kernel as a whole is strictly GPLv2" (I've tried to get it right, but my
memory isn't as good as it used to be when it comes to useful quotes like
that)

DRH

Tarkan Erimer

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 10:30:09 AM6/10/07
to
debian developer wrote:
> On 6/10/07, da...@lang.hm <da...@lang.hm> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>>
>> >> > And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright
>> owner can
>> >> > hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
>> >> > copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law
>> orders at
>> >> > this point for copyright holding ?
>> >>
>> >> I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years.
>> >>
>> >> David Lang
>> > Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better
>> idea to
>> > replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting
>> such 90+
>> > years!
>>
>> exactly, however as others are pointing out, there are a lot of active
>> developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3
>> (including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is
>> better it
>
> Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of
> the final draft of GPLv3. I think Linus, and other major developers
> should make their stand on this issue clear so that the kernel
> community can discuss the future steps.
Yep, the GPLv3 probably will release around July time. So;luckily, we
had very little time to see the final decision about it :-) I hope we
should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License" the OpenSolaris
via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.). So,we should
have more fruits (like ZFS,DTrace etc.) ;-)

Michael Gerdau

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 10:30:10 AM6/10/07
to
> In most of the law systems out there the copyright stays valid for 70
> years (or so) after the holder's death.

[I don't want to appear picky but IMO it is important to be as precise
as one could possibly be, therefor...]

That is not quite correct. At least for the german law system and
presumably for most if not all similar systems the corrrect stmts is:

In most of the law systems out there the copyright stays valid for 70

years (or so) after initial publication of the copyrighted work. For
work whose publication date can't be determined (*) (e.g. unpublished work)
the creators death is assumed to be the publication date for the sake
of determining the aforementioned 70 years protection period.

(*) "can't be determined" does not apply for published work with an
insecure initial publication date. In those cases the earliest documented
publication (i.e. prooveable in court) is considered the initial publication
.date

Note that the original phrase could last indefinitely by simply moving
the copyright from person to person.

Best,
Michael
--
Technosis GmbH, Geschäftsführer: Michael Gerdau, Tobias Dittmar
Sitz Hamburg; HRB 89145 Amtsgericht Hamburg
Vote against SPAM - see http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/
Michael Gerdau email: m...@technosis.de
GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver

signature.asc

Michael Gerdau

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 10:40:08 AM6/10/07
to
[legal precedence to force waiving copyright>

> A legal precedent valid in all jurisdictions?
>
> Harald suceessfully takes legal actions against people violating his
> copyright on the Linux kernel under the terms of the GPL in Germany at
> German courts based on German laws.
>
> If someone finds any legal precedent in Finland or the USA or Russia
> that some copyright would have lapsed for some reason, would this have
> any legal effect in Germany?

That is difficult but AFAIK it work in the "increase protection"
direction but not the other way around, at least in germany.

For example even though the copyright on Micky Mouse is no longer
valid by german law it is still enforcible under german law because
the german jurisdiction does acknowledge the (recently extended)
longer such period in the US.

Apart from that I'm sure you'd find some state "legally" waiving a
copyright on whatever. If that would start an avalanche of similar
terminations everywhere else I'd be utterly surprised.

signature.asc

Adrian Bunk

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 10:50:08 AM6/10/07
to
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 04:23:20PM +0200, Michael Gerdau wrote:
> > In most of the law systems out there the copyright stays valid for 70
> > years (or so) after the holder's death.
>
> [I don't want to appear picky but IMO it is important to be as precise
> as one could possibly be, therefor...]
>
> That is not quite correct. At least for the german law system and
> presumably for most if not all similar systems the corrrect stmts is:
>
> In most of the law systems out there the copyright stays valid for 70
> years (or so) after initial publication of the copyrighted work.
>...

Please read the German "Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte
Schutzrechte" before making completely false claims - in Germany it's
70 years after the death of the author.

> Best,
> Michael

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-

Michael Gerdau

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 11:00:08 AM6/10/07
to
> Please read the German "Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte
> Schutzrechte" before making completely false claims - in Germany it's
> 70 years after the death of the author.

Oups, I had been mixing up named published works and anonymously
published works.

My previous claim is valid for anonymously published work only and
thus holds no relevance for the situation discussed. I apologize for
having raised a false claim.

The copyright for works with a known is valid for 70 years after
the authors death.

Sorry,

signature.asc

Tim Post

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 11:40:07 AM6/10/07
to
On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 19:36 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:

> I presume the heirs of the dead people could change the license. And
> if they have no heir, then there is no-one to sue for breach of
> copyright, so I assume the copyright lapses.
>
> And I wouldn't be surprised if there were some legal precedent that
> allowed for some process whereby we could make a "best effort" to
> contact copyright holders (including registered paper letters and
> entries in the "Public Notices" section of major newspapers) and if
> no-one stepped forward to claim copyright in a reasonable period of
> time we could assume that the copyright had lapsed. But you would
> need to ask a lawyer, and it would be different in different
> countries.

I've done some research on this and from what I can tell you are
correct. There is some sort of "Due Diligence" law that you have to
satisfy that is slightly different from country to country.

>From what I can tell the process is similar to changing your name, an ad
in the paper would be o.k. in most places. Since the intent of the
copyright holder to make their work free is clear, its pretty clear cut.

It was hard to find specifics, because not many people worry about it if
they know the copyright holder to be existentially challenged. I didn't
find many cases of people even bothering with the formality.

I say existentially challenged because you don't need to be dead to
vanish. I also read it as ".. a person of questionable existence." as
well as "A null (or moot) party".

> But I think this is largely academic. You only need a fairly small
> number of fairly significant contributors to say "no" and the rest of
> the process would be pointless. And at last count, the number of
> kernel people who were not keen on GPLv3 was fairly high. Of course
> no-one knows for certain yet what the final GPLv3 will be, and maybe
> lots of people would change their mind when it comes out.

I think its good that people have their own viewpoints instead of just
watching the Linus - RMS tennis match as the points of the license get
debated and assuming the views of whoever 'wins' in their eyes. Neither
person is going to be around forever.

> There would certainly be value in a straw-pole once GPLv3 was out and
> had been discussed for a while - to see if a license change to GPLv3
> would be accepted by a majority of current developers. Doing that
> would at least provide a clear statistic to point people at.

Unless you are distributing the Linux kernel in a whole or parts of it
in some way you don't even HAVE to accept the terms of the GPL2, or GPL3
for that matter. This doesn't really concern me as an end user, but it
should interest me (and does).

I'm more worried about someone finding a way to leverage existing or
future patents against users of the Linux kernel, or people who provide
the use of a computer using the Linux kernel as a service.

I'm not *overly* concerned about that. Anyone trying to get people to
pay for the right to use the Linux kernel would put themselves in clear
and certain danger of becoming ' a person of questionable existence '
themselves.

Best,
--Tim

Greg KH

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 12:10:09 PM6/10/07
to
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 04:25:55PM +0530, debian developer wrote:
> On 6/10/07, da...@lang.hm <da...@lang.hm> wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> >
> > >> > And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner
> > can
> > >> > hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
> > >> > copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders
> > at
> > >> > this point for copyright holding ?
> > >>
> > >> I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years.
> > >>
> > >> David Lang
> > > Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better idea
> > to
> > > replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting such
> > 90+
> > > years!
> >
> > exactly, however as others are pointing out, there are a lot of active
> > developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3
> > (including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is better it
>
> Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of
> the final draft of GPLv3. I think Linus, and other major developers
> should make their stand on this issue clear so that the kernel
> community can discuss the future steps.

"future steps"? Hah.

My code is going to stay GPLv2 as the v3 license is horrible for kernel
code for all of the reasons I have said in the past, plus a few more
(what, I can make an "industrial" product but not a commercial one?
That's horrible...)

thanks,

greg k-h

Greg KH

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 12:20:06 PM6/10/07
to
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 05:21:53PM +0300, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License" the
> OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.).

The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not want to
accept GPLv3, why not discuss this with them if you want to try to
change their minds?

> So,we should have more fruits (like ZFS,DTrace etc.) ;-)

I think the transfer would be more the other way, we have a zillion more
things that they do not than the other way around.

thanks,

greg k-h

Linus Torvalds

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 1:30:15 PM6/10/07
to

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> >
> > Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of
> > the final draft of GPLv3.

I was impressed in the sense that it was a hell of a lot better than the
disaster that were the earlier drafts.

I still think GPLv2 is simply the better license.

I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at
least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for
licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I've heard are shrill voices about
"tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about
Novell-MS (which seems way overblown, and quite frankly, the argument
seems to not so much be about the Novell deal, as about an excuse to push
the GPLv3).

Linus

Linus Torvalds

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 1:40:09 PM6/10/07
to

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for licensing under the GPLv3,
> though.

Btw, if Sun really _is_ going to release OpenSolaris under GPLv3, that
_may_ be a good reason. I don't think the GPLv3 is as good a license as
v2, but on the other hand, I'm pragmatic, and if we can avoid having two
kernels with two different licenses and the friction that causes, I at
least see the _reason_ for GPLv3. As it is, I don't really see a reason at
all.

I personally doubt it will happen, but hey, I didn't really expect them to
open-source Java either(*), so it's not like I'm infallible in my
predictions.

Linus

(*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released it - I
walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they discussed their
horrible previous Java license.

Alan Cox

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 1:50:07 PM6/10/07
to
> licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I've heard are shrill voices about
> "tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about

GPLv2 probably forbids Tivoisation anyway. Which is good IMHO even if not
yours 8)

Jeff Garzik

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 2:00:14 PM6/10/07
to
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I still think GPLv2 is simply the better license.

Ditto.

Jeff

debian developer

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 3:30:04 PM6/10/07
to
I don't think that upgrading to GPLv3 just for the sake of tools
present in some other software should be the reason. We are capable
enough of developing our own tools, and many experienced people are
working on equivalent(etx4 etc.,) and much sophisticated tools for the
linux kernel.

debian developer

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 3:40:08 PM6/10/07
to
On 6/10/07, Alan Cox <al...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I've heard are shrill voices about
> > "tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about
>
> GPLv2 probably forbids Tivoisation anyway. Which is good IMHO even if not
^^^^^^^^

Now that is a bit waving in the air. GPLv2 forbids Tivoisation
theoretically but practically it didnt stop them doing it practically.
I agree with Linus that software licenses should have their influence
only on the software part and leave the freedom of the hardware on
which the software runs to the hardware manufacturers.

But was it the goal of GPLv2??

And what does Andrew Morton think of all this? I really want to know
his opinions....

Andrew Morton

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 4:10:09 PM6/10/07
to
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:02:42 +0530 "debian developer" <debi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And what does Andrew Morton think of all this? I really want to know
> his opinions....

I have yet to see Linus make a statement on these matters with which
I didn't agree.

David Schwartz

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 4:50:13 PM6/10/07
to

> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1915720,00.asp
> has the answer. Quoting Linus:
>
> "If you want to license a program under any later version of the
> GPL, you have
> to state so explicitly. Linux never did."
>
> Hence, unless there's a "GPL 2 or later", all the "unspecified GPL" files
> are GPL2 only.

The GPL states the default position:

"If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may
choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."

Leaving the question of whether Linus's comment at the top of the license
changes the default:

"Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is
concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or
v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated."

So we have dueling defaults. The GPL says the default is any version. Linus'
statement at the top of the GPL says the default is v2 only. It's not clear,
at least to me, that there is any clear reason why one should win out over
the other.

DS

Alan Cox

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 4:50:14 PM6/10/07
to
> > GPLv2 probably forbids Tivoisation anyway. Which is good IMHO even if not
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> Now that is a bit waving in the air. GPLv2 forbids Tivoisation
> theoretically but practically it didnt stop them doing it practically.

They've never been given permission and there is no caselaw yet, doesn't
mean they are allowed to.

GPL2 actually in some ways was saner than GPL3 on this - you could
sensibly argue the key was part of the source/build environment but it
didn't then get muddled in with questions like ROMs which the new GPL3
wording is a bit messy about still.

Alan

James Bruce

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 5:20:05 PM6/10/07
to
Linus Torvalds wrote:
[ snip ]

> I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at
> least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for
> licensing under the GPLv3, though.
[ snip ]

One thing that would make that easier in the future is if contributers
at least started to dual-license their submissions. I.e. if instead
of "GPL version 2", one could say "GPL version 2 or GPL version 3".
It isn't the same thing as the problematic "GPL version 2 or later",
because the developer is not agreeing to an unseen license (GPLv4,
etc). What it does do is make it easier to move to GPLv3 a few years
from now, if that is decided then, as a significant fraction of the
code will already be GPLv3 compatible. That way, if a reason is ever
found to move to v3, at least some of the work will already be done.

- Jim Bruce

Jesper Juhl

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 5:50:09 PM6/10/07
to
On 10/06/07, James Bruce <br...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [ snip ]
> > I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at
> > least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for
> > licensing under the GPLv3, though.
> [ snip ]
>
> One thing that would make that easier in the future is if contributers
> at least started to dual-license their submissions. I.e. if instead
> of "GPL version 2", one could say "GPL version 2 or GPL version 3".
> It isn't the same thing as the problematic "GPL version 2 or later",
> because the developer is not agreeing to an unseen license (GPLv4,
> etc). What it does do is make it easier to move to GPLv3 a few years
> from now, if that is decided then, as a significant fraction of the
> code will already be GPLv3 compatible. That way, if a reason is ever
> found to move to v3, at least some of the work will already be done.
>
Good luck convincing all contributors to do that.

Personally I'm happy with GPL v2, and I for one won't be
dual-licensing anything I contribute until I see a clear benefit of
doing so (and I don't yet).

In any case, this whole debate is still a bit premature since GPL v3
has not even arrived in its final form yet.

--
Jesper Juhl <jespe...@gmail.com>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

Al Viro

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 6:10:10 PM6/10/07
to
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 12:52:41AM +0530, debian developer wrote:

> I don't think that upgrading to GPLv3 just for the sake of tools
> present in some other software should be the reason. We are capable
> enough of developing our own tools, and many experienced people are
> working on equivalent(etx4 etc.,) and much sophisticated tools for the
> linux kernel.

I don't think that switch to GPLv3 can be described as upgrade. I certainly
have no intention to do that to my code; some of it I might release under BSD
license, and that can be used in any project. The rest of the kernel stuff
I've done (and that's the majority of my contributions) is under GPLv2 *only*.

James Bruce

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 6:50:07 PM6/10/07
to
Jesper Juhl wrote:
>> One thing that would make that easier in the future is if contributers
>> at least started to dual-license their submissions. I.e. if instead
>> of "GPL version 2", one could say "GPL version 2 or GPL version 3".
>> It isn't the same thing as the problematic "GPL version 2 or later",
>> because the developer is not agreeing to an unseen license (GPLv4,
>> etc). What it does do is make it easier to move to GPLv3 a few years
>> from now, if that is decided then, as a significant fraction of the
>> code will already be GPLv3 compatible. That way, if a reason is ever
>> found to move to v3, at least some of the work will already be done.
>>
> Good luck convincing all contributors to do that.

Well, it's something that pro-GPLv3 people can do right now, instead of
just lobbying/complaining. Given 1000 developers, if 400 start dual
licensing now, and down the road some compelling reason for GPLv3 does
arise (read: a lawsuit with teeth), that's 600 people you need to
contact/convince to change, not 1000. This is made more interesting by
that fact that 40% of the kernel code is already "GPLv2 or later", as
someone else pointed out.

> Personally I'm happy with GPL v2, and I for one won't be
> dual-licensing anything I contribute until I see a clear benefit of
> doing so (and I don't yet).

Well, all my personal (non-kernel) stuff is still GPLv2 only right now
(Linus' opinion is what convinced me that "or later" is dumb), and like
many I disliked the original GPLv3 draft. I'm willing to wait until the
final one is out though, and I think my libraries will end up being
dual-licensed, with contributions required to be dual-licensed. I want
to avoid v3 lock-in, but I don't want to cripple v3 projects either.

> In any case, this whole debate is still a bit premature since GPL v3
> has not even arrived in its final form yet.

Agreed.

- Jim Bruce

Greg KH

unread,
Jun 10, 2007, 11:50:05 PM6/10/07
to
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 09:54:58PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > GPLv2 probably forbids Tivoisation anyway. Which is good IMHO even if not
> > ^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Now that is a bit waving in the air. GPLv2 forbids Tivoisation
> > theoretically but practically it didnt stop them doing it practically.
>
> They've never been given permission and there is no caselaw yet, doesn't
> mean they are allowed to.

Are you sure? Tivo went and got a FSF "verification" of their system a
number of years ago and got their blessing that what they were doing was
just fine with regards to the GPLv2.

This is one reason Tivo's lawyers were so perplexed when the FSF then
turned around and made their company's name into a term to describe DRM
stuff and started preaching how it was so bad. It seemed to be in
direct crontridiction from what they had previously been told by the
very same people.

Now yes, they didn't consult with the individual owners of the kernel,
who might hold different views as to if v2 covers keys like you have
stated in the past, but the FSF's position in this area does hold some
ammount of weight, especially in court if it were to come to that.

thanks,

greg k-h

H. Peter Anvin

unread,
Jun 11, 2007, 2:20:09 AM6/11/07
to
Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can
> hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
> copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders at
> this point for copyright holding ?

In most countries, copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the
author. Either way, it is most definitely valid.

-hpa

Tarkan Erimer

unread,
Jun 11, 2007, 2:50:11 AM6/11/07
to
Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 05:21:53PM +0300, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>
>> I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License" the
>> OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.).
>>
>
> The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not want to
> accept GPLv3, why not discuss this with them if you want to try to
> change their minds?
>
It was just an example came to my mind at first when thinking about
"Dual Licensing" or upgrading Linux Kernel to the GPLv3. Yeah maybe,the
"OpenSolaris Community" do not want GPLv3. But; IMHO, it is in the hands
of "Sun" not the "OpenSolaris Community".

Regards,

Tarkan

Tarkan Erimer

unread,
Jun 11, 2007, 3:00:16 AM6/11/07
to
It is not because of the sake of the tools and we have no capable enough
developers. It's just about an example that came to my mind, as I
mentioned before and also,it is the same thing as we, all the time, did.
I mean getting and sharing codes from many different open source
projects like BSD and countless others. So, OpenSolaris makes no
difference at this.

Regards,

Tarkan

Al Viro

unread,
Jun 11, 2007, 3:10:10 AM6/11/07
to
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 09:46:18AM +0300, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 05:21:53PM +0300, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> >
> >> I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License" the
> >> OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.).
> >>
> >
> >The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not want to
> >accept GPLv3, why not discuss this with them if you want to try to
> >change their minds?
> >
> It was just an example came to my mind at first when thinking about
> "Dual Licensing" or upgrading Linux Kernel to the GPLv3. Yeah maybe,the
> "OpenSolaris Community" do not want GPLv3. But; IMHO, it is in the hands
> of "Sun" not the "OpenSolaris Community".

Perhaps. However, since the only thing in hands of your kind of advocates
is best not mentioned on a family-friendly maillist, may I suggest taking
that exciting thread to more appropriate place?

Tarkan Erimer

unread,
Jun 11, 2007, 3:30:13 AM6/11/07
to
Al Viro wrote:
> Perhaps. However, since the only thing in hands of your kind of advocates
> is best not mentioned on a family-friendly maillist, may I suggest taking
> that exciting thread to more appropriate place?
>
I don't think that this thread is going unfriendly or harmfully.
However, what is your suggestion ?

Tarkan Erimer

unread,
Jun 11, 2007, 4:00:16 AM6/11/07
to
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> if you want to change the minds of the OpenSolaris community, i'd
> proffer that it's perhaps more efficient to talk to them, not to the
> linux-kernel mailing list. Thanks,
>
> Ingo
>

I do not want to and try to change anyone's mind: nor the Open Solaris
Community nor the Linux Community. Just, I asked simple question and
included a simple example in it. Son, including an example related to
OpenSolaris does not mean that I want to push OpenSolaris things. That's
all.

Regards,

Tarkan

Ingo Molnar

unread,
Jun 11, 2007, 4:00:21 AM6/11/07
to

* Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr> wrote:

> > > >> I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License"
> > > >> the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL
> > > >> compatible.).
> > > >
> > > > The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not
> > > > want to accept GPLv3, why not discuss this with them if you want
> > > > to try to change their minds?
> > >
> > > It was just an example came to my mind at first when thinking
> > > about "Dual Licensing" or upgrading Linux Kernel to the GPLv3.
> > > Yeah maybe,the "OpenSolaris Community" do not want GPLv3. But;
> > > IMHO, it is in the hands of "Sun" not the "OpenSolaris Community".
> >

> > Perhaps. However, since the only thing in hands of your kind of
> > advocates is best not mentioned on a family-friendly maillist, may I
> > suggest taking that exciting thread to more appropriate place?
>
> I don't think that this thread is going unfriendly or harmfully.
> However, what is your suggestion ?

if you want to change the minds of the OpenSolaris community, i'd

proffer that it's perhaps more efficient to talk to them, not to the
linux-kernel mailing list. Thanks,

Ingo

Ingo Molnar

unread,
Jun 11, 2007, 4:20:03 AM6/11/07
to

* Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr> wrote:

> [...] Just, I asked simple question and included a simple example in
> it. [...]

actually, what you said was this:

" I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License"
the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL
compatible.). "

and to that the answer was:

" The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not want to

accept GPLv3 [...] "

in other words: your hypothetical is false today. You called us to do a
specific action, but why did you then include a factually false
'example' to underline that point of yours? Or if you simply did not
know about the OpenSolaris community's position beforehand, why dont you
just admit that and withdraw from that line of argument gracefully?

Ingo

Tarkan Erimer

unread,
Jun 11, 2007, 4:40:07 AM6/11/07
to
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for licensing under the GPLv3,
>> though.
>>
>
> Btw, if Sun really _is_ going to release OpenSolaris under GPLv3, that
> _may_ be a good reason. I don't think the GPLv3 is as good a license as
> v2, but on the other hand, I'm pragmatic, and if we can avoid having two
> kernels with two different licenses and the friction that causes, I at
> least see the _reason_ for GPLv3. As it is, I don't really see a reason at
> all.
>
> I personally doubt it will happen, but hey, I didn't really expect them to
> open-source Java either(*), so it's not like I'm infallible in my
> predictions.
>
> Linus
>
> (*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released it - I
> walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they discussed their
> horrible previous Java license.
>

Thanks for making things more clear :-) Some really strong indications
that Sun is very willing to,at least, "Dual-License" the OpenSolaris
with GPLv3. I think; in a very short time; we will see when the GPLv3
finalized and released.

Regards,

Tarkan

Tarkan Erimer

unread,
Jun 11, 2007, 4:40:08 AM6/11/07
to
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr> wrote:
>
>
>> [...] Just, I asked simple question and included a simple example in
>> it. [...]
>>
>
> actually, what you said was this:
>
> " I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License"
> the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL
> compatible.). "
>
Why don't you include the last sentence I wrote: "So,we should have more
fruits (like ZFS,DTrace etc.) ;-) "
So, that's why I said it. Because, as all the time, we did it: Importing
and exporting codes to/from different open source projects.

> and to that the answer was:
>
> " The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not want to
> accept GPLv3 [...] "
>
> in other words: your hypothetical is false today. You called us to do a
> specific action, but why did you then include a factually false
> 'example' to underline that point of yours? Or if you simply did not
> know about the OpenSolaris community's position beforehand, why dont you
> just admit that and withdraw from that line of argument gracefully?
>
> Ingo
>

As I mentioned in my previous posts: This is **not** in the hands of the
"OpenSolaris Community" to make and apply such decision. Sun itself
**will decide** it. Also, there are strong indications that Sun is very
interested to make "OpenSolaris" at least "Dual-Licensed" with GPLv3.

Regards,

Tarkan

Ingo Molnar

unread,
Jun 11, 2007, 4:50:06 AM6/11/07
to

* Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >* Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>[...] Just, I asked simple question and included a simple example in
> >>it. [...]
> >>
> >
> >actually, what you said was this:
> >
> >" I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License"
> > the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL
> > compatible.). "
> >
> Why don't you include the last sentence I wrote: "So,we should have more
> fruits (like ZFS,DTrace etc.) ;-) "

You might as well have said "the moon is made out of cheese" and i'd not
have quoted it either. Why? Because it's irrelevant to the fundamental
point that was raised and which you keep ignoring: that the only
"example" you cited is a hypothetical that is currently false. In any
case, speculation about what Sun might or might not do, up until the
point it actually does it, is not something i feel compelled to do
anything over, so please stop wasting my time by Cc:-ing me. Thanks,

Ingo

Tarkan Erimer

unread,
Jun 11, 2007, 5:00:21 AM6/11/07
to
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> You might as well have said "the moon is made out of cheese" and i'd not
> have quoted it either. Why? Because it's irrelevant to the fundamental
> point that was raised and which you keep ignoring: that the only
> "example" you cited is a hypothetical that is currently false. In any
> case, speculation about what Sun might or might not do, up until the
> point it actually does it, is not something i feel compelled to do
> anything over, so please stop wasting my time by Cc:-ing me. Thanks,
>
> Ingo
>

I think, you do not want to understand what I really mean. OK,I
stopping here. Because, you already wasted a lot of my time via always
not understanding what I really mean.

Regards,

Tarkan

Ingo Molnar

unread,
Jun 11, 2007, 5:10:08 AM6/11/07
to

* Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr> wrote:

> > (*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released
> > it - I walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they
> > discussed their horrible previous Java license.
>
> Thanks for making things more clear :-) Some really strong indications
> that Sun is very willing to,at least, "Dual-License" the OpenSolaris
> with GPLv3. I think; in a very short time; we will see when the GPLv3
> finalized and released.

that would certainly be a good and productive move from them. Note the
issue that others have pointed out to you: OpenSolaris is probably more
interested in picking up code from Linux than the other way around! :-)
You mentioned "dtrace" and "ZFS". Firstly, Linux already has a "dtrace"
equivalent. Secondly, ZFS might be interesting in theory, although our
prior experience of having compatibly-licensed filesystems ported over
to Linux has been pretty negative: XFS ended up being an integration
nightmare - and that doesnt have to do anything with the qualities of
XFS (it's one of the cleanest Linux filesystems, if not the cleanest),
the problem is that components within a kernel are very tightly
integrated and rarely does it make sense to port over more than just
drivers or maybe libraries. And that's i guess what OpenSolaris lacks
and which i suspect it is mostly interested in: lots of nice Linux
drivers ;-) XFS, the largest Linux filesystem is 100K lines of code -
and ZFS (i've never seen it) is very likely smaller than that. Linux
drivers on the other hand, as of today, are _3.7 million_ lines of code
and enable Linux to run on 99% of the hardware that is produced today.
Guess which one has the larger strategic significance? ;-)

Ingo

Alan Cox

unread,
Jun 11, 2007, 5:40:05 AM6/11/07
to
> Now yes, they didn't consult with the individual owners of the kernel,
> who might hold different views as to if v2 covers keys like you have
> stated in the past, but the FSF's position in this area does hold some
> ammount of weight, especially in court if it were to come to that.

The authors position does have rather a lot of weight too. Especially as
they have been made plain to Tivo and various other relevant parties.

Alan

Tim Post

unread,
Jun 11, 2007, 6:00:13 AM6/11/07
to
On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 11:49 +0300, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>
> So, does it mean we can change the license of the dead people's code ?
>

Please realize that one doesn't need to be dead to become
uncommunicative incapacitated or vanish. The only need to be somewhere
other than where they were without updating anyone.

Here is a very humorous, but sort of scary theoretical :

"Linus was so disturbed by the code in a submitted patch that he had a
nervous breakdown and spent the next 30 years in a padded room.
Unfortunately, no provisions were left to determine what happens to his
copyrights should he become incapacitated."

That is a LOT different than

"Linus passed away at age 397 today, and left an appropriate will so his
work remains useful for those enjoying it."

If you are a substantial contributor, address this in a will should you
die and limited power of attorney to someone that you trust should you
fall off the face of the planet. Just like you would see to it that your
assets were properly dispersed if something happened to you.

If your unfortunate enough to not have anyone in your life that you can
trust, you can grant power of attorney to any reputable charitable
organization that you feel mirrors your beliefs and ideals.

Prevention is so much better than a cure and quite cheap.

Best,
--Tim

Bron Gondwana

unread,
Jun 11, 2007, 6:30:11 AM6/11/07
to
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 11:03:48AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr> wrote:
>
> > > (*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released
> > > it - I walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they
> > > discussed their horrible previous Java license.
> >
> > Thanks for making things more clear :-) Some really strong indications
> > that Sun is very willing to,at least, "Dual-License" the OpenSolaris
> > with GPLv3. I think; in a very short time; we will see when the GPLv3
> > finalized and released.
>
> that would certainly be a good and productive move from them. Note the
> issue that others have pointed out to you: OpenSolaris is probably more
> interested in picking up code from Linux than the other way around! :-)
> You mentioned "dtrace" and "ZFS". Firstly, Linux already has a "dtrace"
> equivalent. Secondly, ZFS might be interesting in theory
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Having just got my first Sun box (one of those 48 disk Thumper machines)
I can say it's very interesting in practice too. The admin tools for
zfs are a dream to use (unlike just about everything else on Solaris
which is a bugwards compatible nightmare to use) and the attitude of
checksumming everything on to disk and checking that those checksums
match on the way back out presses my "do your own safety checking and
don't trust the hardware" buttons very much the right way - especially
with that much hardware in there.

I would love to see Sun GPL3 OpenSolaris, not so much for the code
itself (maybe not portable into Linux) but for the clarity it would
give to the patent position. The patent peace would be portable back
to GPL2.

Bron.

Tarkan Erimer

unread,
Jun 11, 2007, 7:30:15 AM6/11/07
to
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr> wrote:
>
>
>>> (*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released
>>> it - I walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they
>>> discussed their horrible previous Java license.
>>>
>> Thanks for making things more clear :-) Some really strong indications
>> that Sun is very willing to,at least, "Dual-License" the OpenSolaris
>> with GPLv3. I think; in a very short time; we will see when the GPLv3
>> finalized and released.
>>
>
> that would certainly be a good and productive move from them. Note the
> issue that others have pointed out to you: OpenSolaris is probably more
> interested in picking up code from Linux than the other way around! :-)
>
Totally agreed :-)

> You mentioned "dtrace" and "ZFS". Firstly, Linux already has a "dtrace"
> equivalent. Secondly, ZFS might be interesting in theory, although our
> prior experience of having compatibly-licensed filesystems ported over
> to Linux has been pretty negative: XFS ended up being an integration
> nightmare - and that doesnt have to do anything with the qualities of
> XFS (it's one of the cleanest Linux filesystems, if not the cleanest),
> the problem is that components within a kernel are very tightly
> integrated and rarely does it make sense to port over more than just
> drivers or maybe libraries. And that's i guess what OpenSolaris lacks
> and which i suspect it is mostly interested in: lots of nice Linux
> drivers ;-) XFS, the largest Linux filesystem is 100K lines of code -
> and ZFS (i've never seen it) is very likely smaller than that. Linux
> drivers on the other hand, as of today, are _3.7 million_ lines of code
> and enable Linux to run on 99% of the hardware that is produced today.
> Guess which one has the larger strategic significance? ;-)
>
> Ingo
>
Yep, it is clear that sun needs more things like drivers etc. to make
OpenSolaris more usable and user friendly. Here is an article about this
subject and some thoughts of Ian (Murdock) about it ;-)

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Sun-hopes-for-Linux-like-Solaris/0,130061733,339276057,00.htm

Alexandre Oliva

unread,
Jun 12, 2007, 4:40:09 AM6/12/07
to
On Jun 11, 2007, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu> wrote:

> And that's i guess what OpenSolaris lacks and which i suspect it is
> mostly interested in: lots of nice Linux drivers ;-) XFS, the
> largest Linux filesystem is 100K lines of code - and ZFS (i've never
> seen it) is very likely smaller than that. Linux drivers on the
> other hand, as of today, are _3.7 million_ lines of code and enable
> Linux to run on 99% of the hardware that is produced today. Guess
> which one has the larger strategic significance? ;-)

Per this reasoning, Sun wouldn't be waiting for GPLv3, and it would
have already released the OpenSolaris kernel under GPLv2, would it
not? ;-)

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}

Linus Torvalds

unread,
Jun 12, 2007, 11:50:09 AM6/12/07
to

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> Per this reasoning, Sun wouldn't be waiting for GPLv3, and it would
> have already released the OpenSolaris kernel under GPLv2, would it
> not? ;-)

Umm. You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking that Sun is in
this to actually further some open-source agenda.

Here's a cynical prediction (but backed up by past behaviour of Sun):

- first off: they may be talking a lot more than they are or ever will
be doing. How many announcements about Sun and Linux have you seen over
the years? And how much of that has actually happened?

- They may like open source, but Linux _has_ hurt them in the
marketplace. A lot.

They almost used to own the chip design market, and it took quite a
long time before the big EDA vendors ported to Linux (and x86-64 in
particular). But when they did, their chip design market just basically
disappeared: sparc performance is so horribly bad (especially on a
workstation kind of setup), that to do chip design on them is just
idiotic. Which is not to say that there aren't holdouts, but let's face
it, for a lot of things, Solaris is simply the wrong choice these days.

Ergo: they sure as hell don't want to help Linux. Which is fine.
Competition is good.

- So they want to use Linux resources (_especially_ drivers), but they do
*not* want to give anything back (especially ZFS, which seems to be one
of their very very few bright spots).

- Ergo: they'll not be releasing ZFS and the other things that people are
drooling about in a way that lets Linux use them on an equal footing. I
can pretty much guarantee that. They don't like competition on that
level. They'd *much* rather take our drivers and _not_ give anythign
back, or give back the stuff that doesn't matter (like core Solaris:
who are you kidding - Linux code is _better_).

End result:

- they'll talk about it. They not only drool after our drivers, they
drool after all the _people_ who write drivers. They'd love to get
kernel developers from Linux, they see that we have a huge amount of
really talented people. So they want to talk things up, and the more
"open source" they can position themselves, the better.

- They may release the uninteresting parts under some fine license. See
the OpenSolaris stuff - instead of being blinded by the code they _did_
release under an open source license, ask yourself what they did *not*
end up releasing. Ask yourself why the open source parts are not ready
to bootstrap a competitive system, or why they are released under
licenses that Sun can make sure they control.

So the _last_ thing they want to do is to release the interesting stuff
under GPLv2 (quite frankly, I think the only really interesting thing they
have is ZFS, and even there, I suspect we'd be better off talking to
NetApp, and seeing if they are interested in releasing WAFL for Linux).

Yes, they finally released Java under GPLv2, and they should be commended
for that. But you should also ask yourself why, and why it took so long.
Maybe it had something to do with the fact that other Java implementations
started being more and more relevant?

Am I cynical? Yes. Do I expect people to act in their own interests? Hell
yes! That's how things are _supposed_ to happen. I'm not at all berating
Sun, what I'm trying to do here is to wake people up who seem to be living
in some dream-world where Sun wants to help people.

So to Sun, a GPLv3-only release would actually let them look good, and
still keep Linux from taking their interesting parts, and would allow them
to take at least parts of Linux without giving anything back (ahh, the
joys of license fragmentation).

Of course, they know that. And yes, maybe ZFS is worthwhile enough that
I'm willing to go to the eff