Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.debian.user > #183748

Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement.

From Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk>
Newsgroups linux.debian.user
Subject Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement.
Date 2017-07-16 17:20 +0200
Message-ID <u3TuV-Kd-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (3 earlier) <tXaAy-Ds-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <u3dm1-7bn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <u3fnQ-8td-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <u3z3b-4id-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <u3QdH-6Sf-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On 16/07/17 12:47, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> May I ask, in passing, why Debian (for packages like apt, say) as well as Linux
> did not switch to GPLv3?  Would such switch ease enforcement?

Switching a project over from GPLv2-only to GPLv3-only or GPLv3-or-later 
requires either (a) the consent of all copyright holders who made 
non-trivial contributions or (b) the wholesale replacement of all 
material written by the non-consenting copyright holders.

Thus, for any project which does not require contributors to sign a 
document either ceding their copyright in their contributions to the 
project's proprietor or granting said proprietor authority to relicence, 
it can be *really hard* to make such a transition in a lawful and timely 
manner (and one sufficiently-important non-consentor can basically shoot 
down the entire proposal).

In the particular case of the Linux kernel, *Linus* didn't want to move 
to GPLv3 (because he didn't think certain clauses were a good idea), so 
the move was a dead letter almost from the moment it was proposed.

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> - 2017-06-19 21:00 +0200
  Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> - 2017-06-19 21:40 +0200
    Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> - 2017-06-28 04:10 +0200
      Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> - 2017-07-10 17:40 +0200
      Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@sfconservancy.org> - 2017-07-14 20:20 +0200
        Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> - 2017-07-14 22:30 +0200
          funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@sfconservancy.org> - 2017-07-15 19:30 +0200
            Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2017-07-16 13:50 +0200
              Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2017-07-16 17:20 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2017-07-19 13:20 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2017-07-19 23:20 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2017-07-20 14:10 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Fungi4All <fungilife@protonmail.com> - 2017-07-20 22:20 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2017-07-21 20:40 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 03:40 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Fungi4All <fungilife@protonmail.com> - 2017-07-27 11:00 +0200
              Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@sfconservancy.org> - 2017-07-17 00:50 +0200
              Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 03:00 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@ebb.org> - 2017-07-17 21:40 +0200
  Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 00:20 +0200
    Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 06:50 +0200
      Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Nick Boyce <nick@steelyglint.org> - 2017-07-20 16:20 +0200

csiph-web