4 ms·

Some GPLv2 copyrighted works, such as the Linux kernel, have many contributors. Each contributor is a copyright owner of their contribution. I'm fine with the

Some GPLv2 copyrighted works, such as the Linux kernel, have many contributors. Each contributor is a copyright owner of their contribution. I'm fine with these Technology Leaders using a new GPLv2 derived license on NEW code they contribute. After all, it's their code. Existing code, like the Linux kernel, and other code, already have a specified license. Can the license on the Linux kernel even be changed without consent of everyone who ever participated? (Some of whom may no longer be living.)

ghaff 9y ago
>Existing code, like the Linux kernel, and other code, already have a specified license. Can the license on the Linux kernel even be changed without consent of everyone who ever participated? (Some of whom may no longer be living.) Around the time of GPLv3, Eben Moglen made a statement to the effect that it might be possible because "My guess is that Linux is a collective work…as evidenced by a decade of LKML [the Linux Kernel Mailing List] discussions. That’s my guess." It would certainly be controversial and seems highly unlikely in any case. [ADDED: IANAL and have no opinion on the legalities involved.] https://www.cnet.com/news/linux-to-gplv3-a-practical-matter-not-a-legal-one/ https://www.cnet.com/news/linux-to-gplv3-a-practical-matter-... This is not a new license by the way. It's a commitment "to extending the GPLv3 approach for license compliance errors to the software code that each licenses under GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 and v2."