On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Joshua Kinard <ku...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 02/16/2015 09:04, Rich Freeman wrote: >> I do think that moving to a cleaner policy makes a lot of sense. The >> problem is that doing this sort of thing right potentially involves a >> lot of work as well. Maybe another approach is to just ditch per-file >> copyrights entirely (which a random perusal suggests is how Linux does >> things), but that would STILL require stripping the copyright out of >> these files with all the issues that entails, and limit our ability to >> borrow license-compatible code. > > Focusing on the last paragraph here (but not snipping), my understanding is > the > kernel retains per-file copyrights. This is why the kernel is permanently > wedded to GPLv2, because some of the contributors owning those copyrights have > died and thus can no longer consent to changing to the GPLv3 (or any other OSI > license, or copyright change). Trying to track down their appropriate heirs, > explain the whole situation, and then seek a consent would be a > near-impossible > undertaking. Hence, permanent GPLv2.
Perhaps I should have worded that better. s/per-file copyrights/per-file copyright notices/ Obviously the content of individual files will always be copyrighted absent a release into the public domain. The Linux kernel just doesn't stick notices on individual files that attempt to identify who owns the copyright on what. Presumably that also means that if they borrow a file from somewhere else they don't care to change the copyright notice that was already there (or somehow they manage to avoid the euthusiasm stirred up by removing said notices). -- Rich
