Ubuntu reaches out to embarrassed SuSE devs

[Ian Malone]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 12:53, Alan wrote:
>
>>> who remember that Linus was widely quoted in early interviews
>>> saying that the GPL did not cover code using the module interface.
>> And every time the fact I said this didn't apply to my code. Linus has no
>> power to grant rights to my code any more than he has to say Microsoft's.
> 
> That would be an interesting challenge.  Does the modification
> that Linus added to the copyright have the same weight as
> the GPL in applying to everything subsequently added?  I
> don't see how it could be otherwise.  If the GPL can take
> away your choice of subsequent copyright terms, a modified GPL
> must be able to do the same.  So, to whatever extent the GPL
> is valid, Linus can and did grant rights to any code distributed
> in the work as a whole - which was defined not to include things
> on the other side of the module interface but does include your
> code.  Even if he changed his mind about the issue later, the
> terms could only be changed if all copyright holders agreed.
> 

? The code is covered by GPL 2.  If something ever goes to court
and it depends on the interpretation of a particular section
then (in Britain at least), the court has to try and determine
what the involved parts thought they were agreeing to.
If Linus has a statement out there about his interpretation of
the GPL that counts for something.  It doesn't modify the GPL,
the way it affects other contributors is that they now know
something about Linus's interpretation of the agreement between
them, which should affect their interpretation of the license.
But a statement by Linus can't alter the actual details of the
GPL any more than if he woke up tomorrow and decided the kernel
should be BSD licensed; as you say the terms can only be changed
if all the copyright holders agree (or if contributions from
those who don't are omitted).

-- 
imalone