> OTOH, having exclusive copyright means you can more successfully defend that
> copyright. If someone took a copy of the linux kernel and used it in a
> blatently non-GPL compliant way, who could sue?
At least one opinion is that everyone whose code is used would be entitled
to sue the offender
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:15:16AM +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Under the GPL Having exclusive copyright just means that you can relicense
> later stuff if you want. I'm not clear on why FSF considers it so important
> but for Linux it just means that nobody, not even Linus, can ever release
Jeff Garzik replies to me:
mec> I believe that CML1 is rococo and I welcome a replacement. I think that
mec> leapfrog development is a good strategy here, just as it was for ALSA.
jg> I think this is a key mistake. See Al's message "Of Bundling, Dao,
jg> ...".
I am reading lkml from an archive
