5 ms·

The fact that the Linux kernel removed the "or later version" from the licence and doesn't do copyright assignment make it impossible to switch to anything othe

The fact that the Linux kernel removed the "or later version" from the licence and doesn't do copyright assignment make it impossible to switch to anything other than GPLv2. You'd need to get every single person who'd contributed to agree. Even if they're dead.

chithanh 6y ago
It's not that insurmountable. Each release, large parts of the kernel get rewritten anyway. Lots of kernel code is copyrighted by companies now. So yes, it will probably take too much time and effort and give too little benefit to be practical, but impossible? No. > Even if they're dead. If they are dead, their copyrights are held by someone else now who can be asked.
- cyphar 6y ago
  > Each release, large parts of the kernel get rewritten anyway. That's not really true, and if code is being modified rather than completely replaced it is probably a derivative work of the original code (meaning the license is still GPLv2). The only practical way to make sure the license change is legitimate is to get permission from every single copyright holder. > Lots of kernel code is copyrighted by companies now. And some of those companies may have gone bankrupt or been dissolved which puts you in a similar situation to a contributor who has died, except it may be even harder to figure out who exactly owns the copyrights. > If they are dead, their copyrights are held by someone else now who can be asked. Even if you figure out who owns the copyrights, do you really think you'll be able to convince every single bereaved spouse, sibling, or child to "relicense your dearly departed [father/mother/wife/husband/brother/sister]'s contributions to Linux to GPLv3"? I envy your optimism.
jancsika 6y ago
That's a good point. But then it immediately brings up the question: if that's the case, why would the FSF have been in communication with the Linux kernel peeps with regard to license compatibility and potential upgrade? I can understand getting input from them on the upcoming GPLv3, but not an effort trying to convince them to adopt it.

chithanh 6y ago

It's not that insurmountable. Each release, large parts of the kernel get rewritten anyway. Lots of kernel code is copyrighted by companies now. So yes, it will probably take too much time and effort and give too little benefit to be practical, but impossible? No. > Even if they're dead. If they are dead, their copyrights are held by someone else now who can be asked.

cyphar 6y ago
> Each release, large parts of the kernel get rewritten anyway. That's not really true, and if code is being modified rather than completely replaced it is probably a derivative work of the original code (meaning the license is still GPLv2). The only practical way to make sure the license change is legitimate is to get permission from every single copyright holder. > Lots of kernel code is copyrighted by companies now. And some of those companies may have gone bankrupt or been dissolved which puts you in a similar situation to a contributor who has died, except it may be even harder to figure out who exactly owns the copyrights. > If they are dead, their copyrights are held by someone else now who can be asked. Even if you figure out who owns the copyrights, do you really think you'll be able to convince every single bereaved spouse, sibling, or child to "relicense your dearly departed [father/mother/wife/husband/brother/sister]'s contributions to Linux to GPLv3"? I envy your optimism.

jancsika 6y ago

That's a good point. But then it immediately brings up the question: if that's the case, why would the FSF have been in communication with the Linux kernel peeps with regard to license compatibility and potential upgrade? I can understand getting input from them on the upcoming GPLv3, but not an effort trying to convince them to adopt it.