From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030586AbWJCWCO (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:02:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030593AbWJCWCN (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:02:13 -0400 Received: from iabervon.org ([66.92.72.58]:35343 "EHLO iabervon.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030591AbWJCWCM (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:02:12 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:02:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Barkalow To: Marc Perkel cc: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: Re: Maybe it's time to fork the GPL License - create the Linux license? In-Reply-To: <4520D40F.8080500@perkel.com> Message-ID: References: <20060928144028.GA21814@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <4520D40F.8080500@perkel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Marc Perkel wrote: > Just a thought. Suppose we forked the GPL2 license and created the Linux > license? (Or some better name) It's kind of clear the Stallman has his own > ajenda and that it's not compatible with the Linux model. So - lets fork it an > start a new one. The GPLv2 isn't open source, so it can't (legally) be forked: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. (The "mere aggregation" clause is, in fact, very important, since otherwise it would be impossible to distribute GPLed code along with the license for it.) Now, it would be plausible to get Creative Commons to do a "provide source" clause, such that there would be an alternative text with the same effect as the GPLv2, if there was enough negative opinion about the FSF to justify having an alternative text to use for this effect. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*