From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750720AbWBBSsQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 13:48:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750776AbWBBSsQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 13:48:16 -0500 Received: from web88007.mail.re2.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.194]:58984 "HELO web88007.mail.re2.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750720AbWBBSsQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 13:48:16 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=rogers.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=b4UGTDPX2PMJXcNcwdXZRpH8qvDWxulg6mHabHTyZT3wntCMheJwHgsZHBDji2b1MKthXnIeAeRQ8wsoiJ5zNtmYllmZsJU/7Ay/L1PCIOFMBVJEhwXjDc4TQyEbhOF29YBLGh8xtdPokMVt/7RwMp2onM55gqU+7w7KMijuI78= ; Message-ID: <20060202184814.28624.qmail@web88007.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 13:48:14 -0500 (EST) From: Shawn Starr Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders To: Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote: That's my standpoint, at least. Always has been. It's the reason I chose the GPL in the first place (and it's the exact same reason that I wrote the original Linux copyright license). I do _software_, and I license _software_. ===== (Yahoo email isn't a very frendly email interface, sorry) ;/ Are you not worried that with the GPLv2 also has the clause where if patents not themselves open for use then the whole work becomes non-distributable anymore? Ie, nobody could work on the Linux kernel anymore. I mean, I don't think the FSF would screw people over, if they did nobody would use the GPL license and that would hurt them. I really don't understand why it has to be a 'us vs them' mentality here. We're all trying to create Free/Open software. I'm more concerned that with GPLv2 license as it is, may put the kernel in danger of itself being non-distributable in any sort of way (patents, or other ways?). I don't personally care if the kernel is v2 or v3, my concern is the kernel source itself is safe from evil interests out there. Shawn.