B
Bill Unruh
(e-mail address removed) (Malcolm Dew-Jones) writes:
]Bill Unruh ([email protected]) wrote:
]: (e-mail address removed) (Malcolm Dew-Jones) writes:
]: ]Many people who contributed did not do anything that could be considered a
]: ]"distribution" when they provided it, instead they "contributed" the code
]: ?? what has "distribution" got to do with anything. They allowed Linus and
]: others to copy it. That is as far as their right goes. They can control
]: copying.
]: ]directly to him, effectively making a donation, not a distribution - and
]: ]so for those sections of code, linux may very well be able to change the
]: ]license more than the contributors may realize. More importantly, many
]: No. Noone makes donations. Read the code.
] From the linux kernel mail list faq
] 15.How do I get my patch into the kernel?
] [part of the answer]
] send it to linux-kernel and Cc: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
] and hope Linus will apply it.
] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
]I.e. to get something into the kernel you send it to Linus. The owner of
]the code can certainly do that without themselves requiring any license
](because they own it).
]So what makes you think that Linus must somehow get additional permission
](from the gpl in the code) to use the code? Linus already has permission
]to use the code because the owner chose to send the code to him in the
]hopes he would use it in the kernel.
Most of the code sent to Linus IS GPL, so he has the permission. Without
that explicit statement Linux neither can not would use the code. He MUST
get permission. Simply sending him the code is NOT costruable as giving him
general permission and in particular is not sufficient for him to release
it under the GPL.
]The GPL you see in the code is part of the authors contribution to the
]kernel. It is the authors way of giving permission to any third parties
]who eventually receive the code as part of the kernel (which is what is
]distributed eventually by Linus if he so choses). But it is not the
]permission of the gpl in that code segment that allowed Linus to copy it
]into the kernel in the first place - the author owned the code and chose
]to send it to Linus explicitly for this very purpose, and it is that act
]of sending the code to Linus that gives Linus permission to use it.
No, implicit permission is a very very weak legal basis on which to assume
permission. Linus would be an idiot to think it is. For all he knows what
was sent to him was code which SCO copyrighted. The act of sending code IS
NOT legally the same as giving him permission. For all the court knows (
and the person could claim after the fact) it was sent to Linus to get his
comments on the beauty of the code.
]Bill Unruh ([email protected]) wrote:
]: (e-mail address removed) (Malcolm Dew-Jones) writes:
]: ]Many people who contributed did not do anything that could be considered a
]: ]"distribution" when they provided it, instead they "contributed" the code
]: ?? what has "distribution" got to do with anything. They allowed Linus and
]: others to copy it. That is as far as their right goes. They can control
]: copying.
]: ]directly to him, effectively making a donation, not a distribution - and
]: ]so for those sections of code, linux may very well be able to change the
]: ]license more than the contributors may realize. More importantly, many
]: No. Noone makes donations. Read the code.
] From the linux kernel mail list faq
] 15.How do I get my patch into the kernel?
] [part of the answer]
] send it to linux-kernel and Cc: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
] and hope Linus will apply it.
] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
]I.e. to get something into the kernel you send it to Linus. The owner of
]the code can certainly do that without themselves requiring any license
](because they own it).
]So what makes you think that Linus must somehow get additional permission
](from the gpl in the code) to use the code? Linus already has permission
]to use the code because the owner chose to send the code to him in the
]hopes he would use it in the kernel.
Most of the code sent to Linus IS GPL, so he has the permission. Without
that explicit statement Linux neither can not would use the code. He MUST
get permission. Simply sending him the code is NOT costruable as giving him
general permission and in particular is not sufficient for him to release
it under the GPL.
]The GPL you see in the code is part of the authors contribution to the
]kernel. It is the authors way of giving permission to any third parties
]who eventually receive the code as part of the kernel (which is what is
]distributed eventually by Linus if he so choses). But it is not the
]permission of the gpl in that code segment that allowed Linus to copy it
]into the kernel in the first place - the author owned the code and chose
]to send it to Linus explicitly for this very purpose, and it is that act
]of sending the code to Linus that gives Linus permission to use it.
No, implicit permission is a very very weak legal basis on which to assume
permission. Linus would be an idiot to think it is. For all he knows what
was sent to him was code which SCO copyrighted. The act of sending code IS
NOT legally the same as giving him permission. For all the court knows (
and the person could claim after the fact) it was sent to Linus to get his
comments on the beauty of the code.