Ubuntu reaches out to embarrassed SuSE devs

[Ian Malone]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 22:38 +0000, Ian Malone wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 14:21, Ian Malone wrote:
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ? The code is covered by GPL 2.
>>>>> Beg your pardon, but the COPYING file included with the
>>>>> last kernel source I saw (admittedly a 2.4.x...) was
>>>>> not the same as a stock GPL 2 and points out that programs
>>>>> that interface with kernel system calls are not
>>>>> derived works.
>>>>>
>>>> Pardon granted ;)  If that's the licence you make
>>>> and submit changes under then that's the one you're
>>>> bound by.
>>> No, he didn't modify the part of the GPL that says
>>> the 'work as a whole' must be distributed under the
>>> same terms.  To whatever extent the GPL is valid, it
>>> has to apply to any modifications or they can't be
>>> distributed.   The whole point of the GPL is that
>>> people making changes have no choice about the license
>>> terms that must be applied.
>>>
>> What are we disagreeing about?
> 
> I thought you were suggesting that people had a choice
> of license terms when submitting changes.  The terms make
> it very clear that they don't.
> 

I see, no, I wasn't suggesting that, I was just phrasing
in general terms.  Certainly you can't pick and choose
which terms you follow in most licenses, and the GPL is
no exception.  Its quid-pro-quo is that you are licensed
to produce derivative works provided those derivatives
are made available under the GPL.

-- 
imalone