Posted by: lordcorusa
on January 30, 2006 04:48 AM
That is a wonderfully naive theory, and also legally wrong. In order to change the license of any piece of software, you must get the explicit approval of each and every copyright holder (of their heirs if they are dead). If for some reason you cannot get explicit approval from one or more copyright holders, then legally you must refrain from changing the license, or rip out their pieces and anything that could reasonably be said to be derived from those pieces.
Your opt-out period simply would not hold legal water. Let's hypothetically assume Linus did this for a period of five years. Then he declares the kernel's license has changed. Then, twenty years later, some ex-kernel developer (or his heirs) comes out of the shadows and sues everyone who distributes the kernel for copyright infringement. Remember, with copyright, there is no need to actively enforce it in order to maintain the copyright, and the copyright lasts (in the US and many countries) for 70 years after the death of the creator. This scenario is legally possible.
As such, no one (person or corporation) would distribute software under a new license without the express, probably written, permission of each and every copyright holder or their heirs. For the Linux kernel, with hundreds or thousands of contributors, many of whom have died or disappeared over the years, this task would be nearly impossible.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:When Linus says no to the GPL v3, it means NO.
Posted by: lordcorusa on January 30, 2006 04:48 AMYour opt-out period simply would not hold legal water. Let's hypothetically assume Linus did this for a period of five years. Then he declares the kernel's license has changed. Then, twenty years later, some ex-kernel developer (or his heirs) comes out of the shadows and sues everyone who distributes the kernel for copyright infringement. Remember, with copyright, there is no need to actively enforce it in order to maintain the copyright, and the copyright lasts (in the US and many countries) for 70 years after the death of the creator. This scenario is legally possible.
As such, no one (person or corporation) would distribute software under a new license without the express, probably written, permission of each and every copyright holder or their heirs. For the Linux kernel, with hundreds or thousands of contributors, many of whom have died or disappeared over the years, this task would be nearly impossible.
#