question re. kernel licenses
Perhaps a silly question, but who actually holds the copyright on the kernel? I know it's released under the GPL, but, for the life of me, I can't find any statement of who is actually granting the licenses (i.e., who holds the copyright), and I can't seem to find any kind of copyright assignment statement that contributors are required to execute. So, how does this all work? Thanks! Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 12:10:52PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Perhaps a silly question, but who actually holds the copyright on the kernel?
Nice, a legal question on a technical list? Are you going to ask medical questions here next? :) Seriously, if you have questions like this, and it matters to your business, I strongly suggest you consult a lawyer who knows this type of thing (i.e. copyright law). It differs in every country (and even is different within some states in those countries), so you might get different answers depending on where you care about the result of your question. Best of luck! greg k-h
On 9/1/16 12:27 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 12:10:52PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Perhaps a silly question, but who actually holds the copyright on the kernel? Nice, a legal question on a technical list? Are you going to ask medical questions here next? :)
Seriously, if you have questions like this, and it matters to your business, I strongly suggest you consult a lawyer who knows this type of thing (i.e. copyright law). It differs in every country (and even is different within some states in those countries), so you might get different answers depending on where you care about the result of your question.
The scope of the list is defined "This list is a list for budding kernel hackers, so the idea is to ask queries which are mostly related to Linux Kernel, directly and sometimes indirectly." And the mailing list guidelines include, under "What should be asked?:" "Issues related to the GPL in the kernel." - which are, by definition, legal questions. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 12:10:52PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
I know it's released under the GPL, but, for the life of me, I can't find any statement of who is actually granting the licenses (i.e., who holds the copyright), and I can't seem to find any kind of copyright assignment statement that contributors are required to execute.
So, how does this all work?
Also, please read, Documentation/SubmittingPatches, and Documentation/development_process/ that might help you out here with the more non-legal aspects of your questions. thanks, greg k-h
On 9/1/16 12:27 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 12:10:52PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
I know it's released under the GPL, but, for the life of me, I can't find any statement of who is actually granting the licenses (i.e., who holds the copyright), and I can't seem to find any kind of copyright assignment statement that contributors are required to execute.
So, how does this all work? Also, please read, Documentation/SubmittingPatches, and Documentation/development_process/ that might help you out here with the more non-legal aspects of your questions.
Quite helpful. Thank you. And related precisely to the LEGAL aspects of my query. Specifically: "Code is contributed to the Linux kernel under a number of licenses, but all code must be compatible with version 2 of the GNU General Public License (GPLv2), which is the license covering the kernel distribution as a whole. In practice, that means that all code contributions are covered either by GPLv2 (with, optionally, language allowing distribution under later versions of the GPL) or the three-clause BSD license. Any contributions which are not covered by a compatible license will not be accepted into the kernel. Copyright assignments are not required (or requested) for code contributed to the kernel. All code merged into the mainline kernel retains its original ownership; as a result, the kernel now has thousands of owners. One implication of this ownership structure is that any attempt to change the licensing of the kernel is doomed to almost certain failure. There are few practical scenarios where the agreement of all copyright holders could be obtained (or their code removed from the kernel). So, in particular, there is no prospect of a migration to version 3 of the GPL in the foreseeable future." and, "- The legal issues around the distribution of proprietary kernel modules are cloudy at best; quite a few kernel copyright holders believe that most binary-only modules are derived products of the kernel and that, as a result, their distribution is a violation of the GNU General Public license (about which more will be said below). Your author is not a lawyer, and nothing in this document can possibly be considered to be legal advice. The true legal status of closed-source modules can only be determined by the courts. But the uncertainty which haunts those modules is there regardless." -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
participants (2)
-
Greg KH -
Miles Fidelman