Alan Cox, a leading UK Linux developer, has expressed his support for the next version of the General Public License. His viewpoint is in direct contradiction to Linus Torvalds, the founder of Linux, who said last week that he won’t convert Linux to GPL 3 as he objects to its proposed digital rights management provisions. Cox said that the DRM provisions “don’t really matter” to the Linux kernel as DRM is generally used by applications.
Hasn’t Alan Cox done enough and been around long enough to get name recognition in article titles?
I mean, do we call Bill Gates “Redmond, Washington Windows Guru”
or Steve Jobs “Cupertino, California OS X Guru” ?
You must be new here.
Blame ZDNet UK, it’s the title of their article.
That would explain the crappy title. Let it be known its not just ZDNet UK but all the zdnet domains.
Where are not on ZDNet UK here.
What’s witht he pseudo-controversy here? Is the media trying to generate hype over nothing? The Linux kernel cannot be relicensed. There are just to many people who have copyright on different parts of the code. End of story.
“What’s witht he pseudo-controversy here?”
Well , Linus Thorvalds creator and maintainer of the Kernel thats is at the core of GNU/Linux made a comment and the pundit with no clue joined in as usual to make false usual comments and bash on the FSF and Stallman and GNU/Linux and the GPL.
“Is the media trying to generate hype over nothing?”
No , in this case the agenda beeing pushed for some 2 year is that GNU/Linux user are all radical terrorist bent on jiahding anyone who disagree with there view of how free software is and should be , nothing really new there.
“The Linux kernel cannot be relicensed.”
Wrong , the GPL dont remove the right to relicense the kernel , there is no exact word that forbid relicensing , what is forbiden is to remove rights to others , hence you cant use all the other license in existance that remove one or many rights given by the GPL. Derivative are possible in GNU/Linux too , until now there whas no need for them or anyone interested in making them , not really any point for it until now.
Also the real problem you have is you think that GPL V2 and GPL V3 are two different license when in fact they are two different version of the same license.
“There are just to many people who have copyright on different parts of the code.”
Thats one thing that is making me laugh real hard , the GPL and all other license that are used in the Kernel are under copyfree license , meaning that one can take the Kernel released by Kernel.org under GPL V2 and add very little and release there newer version under V3 , people stil have access to Kernel V2 and since V3 dont break or remove the main freedom its all ok.
“End of story.”
Not quite , but then again its of the legal domain , the story are never 100% finished there , which many people wrongly think is based on politics and agenda.
Like I said Thorvalds is irrelevant as most people get there license and kernel from the distribution and not kernel.org , the majority of GNU/Linux distribution are pro GPL and FSF , the real question is which distribution will release there kernel as V3 and which as V2.
Wrong , the GPL dont remove the right to relicense the kernel , there is no exact word that forbid relicensing , what is forbiden is to remove rights to others , hence you cant use all the other license in existance that remove one or many rights given by the GPL.
Wrong! You make the basic mistake of confusing relicensing rights with redistribution rights. Only the copyright holder has the legal right to relicense a piece of code. The GPL does not have to forbid relicensing, all it has to do is not explicitly grant the right to relicense code. Since it doesn’t, the copyright holders retain licensing rights, and any relicensing must be approved by them.
Also the real problem you have is you think that GPL V2 and GPL V3 are two different license when in fact they are two different version of the same license.
Licenses are not software. There is no concept of “versions” with regards to software licenses. Legally, GPL V2 and GPL V3 are completely different licenses. Now, the developer can choose to license a piece of code under either GPL v2 or any later GPL license, but Linus did not choose to do that. The people who contributed to Linux did not choose to do that. Thus, Linux is stuck at GPL v2.
Thats one thing that is making me laugh real hard , the GPL and all other license that are used in the Kernel are under copyfree license , meaning that one can take the Kernel released by Kernel.org under GPL V2 and add very little and release there newer version under V3
Wrong! By your logic, I could take the kernel, relicense it under the BSD license, and then use that code in a proprietory program. Distributing Linux in the way you mention would be completely illegal.
“You make the basic mistake of confusing relicensing rights with redistribution rights. ”
No , I whas not discussing or mixing relicensing with redistribution right , what I whas pointing clearly at whas that the GPL dont forbide relicensing , the same right you where given are to be given to the next user,
the copyright holder are in fact with the GPL granting those same right as long as you grant them to the next user too.
“Only the copyright holder has the legal right to relicense a piece of code.”
With the GPL the next user is the copyright holder on the derivative. You cant claim the original as your own . Even then the new derivative cant be relicensed to something non free exclusively , your only allowed double licensing.
“all it has to do is not explicitly grant the right to relicense code. ”
Right so when they say you have to give to the next users the same right you receive , what do you think there talking about ?
“There is no concept of “versions” with regards to software licenses. ”
Wrong , there is a concept of versionning in license.
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.0.php
“Legally, GPL V2 and GPL V3 are completely different licenses. ”
No , there the same , just one version as more additions.
“the developer can choose to license a piece of code under either GPL v2 or any later GPL license”
No , its any next user , thats whats good with the GPL.
You are granted the same right and privilege as the primary developper , you cant just claim ownership over is work , but you can build on the shoulder of giant and call it your own.
“but Linus did not choose to do that. The people who contributed to Linux did not choose to do that. Thus, Linux is stuck at GPL v2.”
Linus Thorvalds is not the license , he is the kernel maintainer , is creator and one of its developper. Also the owner of the trademark Linux. He can choose not to version up is license as is is right but the next user have the option to version up as it allowed by the GPL license. Its the License that dictate the right and privilege of the user.
“By your logic”
Its not my logic its the license term and rights that dictate what can and cant happen legally.
“I could take the kernel, relicense it under the BSD license”
No , because the GPL dont allow you to remove the right of others that yourself have received. But it dont remove the possibility of dual licensing of your derivative.
“and then use that code in a proprietory program.”
It would be the BSD license allowing it , what do you think happen with the Dual license code in the kernel ?
“Distributing Linux in the way you mention would be completely illegal.”
Actually , in reality its completely legal , but then in reality versionning and the GPL do exist
No , I whas not discussing or mixing relicensing with redistribution right , what I whas pointing clearly at whas that the GPL dont forbide relicensing
It doesn’t have to. The right to relicense a work (just like the right to redistribute) is automatically reserved to the author.
the copyright holder are in fact with the GPL granting those same right as long as you grant them to the next user too.
You do not have the same rights as the copyright holder. Under copyright law, all rights are reserved to the author unless specified otherwise in the license. The GPL doesn’t grant the power to relicense, so you don’t have the power to relicense.
Wrong , there is a concept of versionning in license.
Licenses often have multiple versions. However, as far as copyright law is concerned, versions have no legal significance. The GPL V2 is a completely different license from the GPL V3, in the context of copyright law. There are no legal provisions that describe how work may be relicensed under varions of a license, because there is no concept of version in copyright law.
Linus Thorvalds is not the license , he is the kernel maintainer , is creator and one of its developper. Also the owner of the trademark Linux. He can choose not to version up is license as is is right but the next user have the option to version up as it allowed by the GPL license.
The GPL actually doesn’t say anything about using any later version. The standard “this code is licensed under the GPL” boilerplate text does give the user to redistribute the code under later versions of the GPL, but its not a part of the license itself, and Linux does not use that clause in its code.
Actually , in reality its completely legal
Try it. Take the Linux code, make a small change, and release it as Moulinneuf OS under GPL v3. Then, send a mail about the release to the Linux Kernel Mailing List. Send me a copy of the Cease and Desist letter from OSDL, it should be entertaining to read.
Edited 2006-02-01 00:24
“The right to relicense a work (just like the right to redistribute) is automatically reserved to the author.”
Thats whats special about the GPL , its using copyright law to give same ownership level to the next user.
“You do not have the same rights as the copyright holder.”
Thats where your wrong , those right are granted by the GPL license.
“Under copyright law, all rights are reserved to the author unless specified otherwise in the license.”
Thats what the GPL does …
“The GPL doesn’t grant the power to relicense, so you don’t have the power to relicense.”
Read the license properly , its alowing relicensing as long as it something that is similar or better to the GPL , in other word as long as the license dont remove the right that where given to you.
“Licenses often have multiple versions.”
No kidding …
“However, as far as copyright law is concerned, versions have no legal significance. ”
Its like saying I can follow the law I like and disregard the one I dont. The more I read you the more
I get that you mix ownership and copyright law.
“The GPL V2 is a completely different license from the GPL V3”
No , but I now get it where most people get there fear of it from.
“in the context of copyright law.”
No , as the new version dont modify the previously given right , it just adress new law that have been implemeted since version 2 and some that are coming in the near futur and new exploitation , that normal use where not tought of before v2 whas created in order to take away code and dont give anything back, that have only recently been identified.
“There are no … version in copyright law. ”
Reapeating something false over many time dont make it more true … If versionning did not exist it would not be written with version …
“The GPL actually doesn’t say anything about using any later version.”
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
“9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.”
“The standard “this code is licensed under the GPL” boilerplate text does give the user to redistribute the code under later versions of the GPL, but its not a part of the license itself, and Linux does not use that clause in its code. ”
See above …
“Try it. … to read.”
What I will do is simplier and more realist , I will wait until V3 is out and in use by the Distribution and point out all of them who will have changed to GPL V3 , since most of them use v2+ for there kernel version already. The OSDL means Open Source development lab its not the FSF there not the one people report to when they see a GPL violation , OSDL only legal task and concern is protecting people from SCO.
http://www.osdl.org/about_osdl/legal/
Time as a tendency to proove me right. Just as it always does.
> Thats whats special about the GPL , its using copyright law to give same ownership level to the next user.
You’re wrong, if I am the author of a GPL piece of code, I can relicense it into BSD, proprietary, etc.. the next user doesn’t have this right, and he cannot also relicense it into GPLv3: that’s just a possibility for the author to authorise the code to be licensed in GPL “2+”, but Linux kernel is, quite clearly, licensed in GPLv2 *only* not GPLv2+: Linus has been quite clear on this topic..
“You’re wrong”
No
“if I am the author of a GPL piece of code, I can relicense it into BSD”
Yes , you right but thats not what I discuss , If your the next user you can release your derivative under GPL V3 or something wich dont remove the right granted by the license.
“and he cannot also relicense it into GPLv3”
Thats where your wrong the license only say to contact the copyright author if you whant to release it under a license which removes right granted by the GPL. Which in practice grant the right to relicense to a similar license for a derivative. But since GPL v2 and GPL V3 is versionning , there is nothing stopping anyone from doing it.
“but Linux kernel is, quite clearly, licensed in GPLv2 *only* not GPLv2+”
Thast why it dont become an automatic V3. It doesn’t forbide versionning up to V3.
“Linus has been quite clear on this topic.”
I would not trust my life on Linus as a lawyer in a court of law. HE is not interestd in the details just in the big lines.
Why do you keep pushing this incorrect viewpoint? Send an e-mail to the FSF and ask. You’re clearly wrong here!
“Why do you keep pushing this incorrect viewpoint?”
Because its the accurate and correct answer and that yours is wrong and is the innacurate viewpoint.
“Send an e-mail to the FSF and ask.”
Why would I need validation on my correct answer , from the same people who gave me the answer in the first place ? Also I dont take legal advice from people on the net.
“You’re clearly wrong here!”
Clearly , you need to repeat yourself over and over in order to reassure yourself on the validity of your opinion. Is it working in your case , because I am clearly unaffected by your innacuracies.
I have to say that if the world of copyright law whas as white and black on copyright license as you wrongly think it is we would be living in a simplier world , The GPL unlike all other copyright license is a leader among a pack of sheep. It give right and protection where other remove and take it in the name of one , where as the GPL give all equality , all the same right and all the same privilege , in the name of all. Probably why the GPL thrive will the other stagnate after a while and are taken over by closed source.
What can I say , its the story of my life , I am according to some majority wrong according to there viewpoint. I just end up being right when everything is said and done because my answers are based on hard facts.
Dont forget keep saying I am wrong , and keep saying that thing that are on legal paper are according to you invalid legally and also keep pointing at a FAQ for GPL V2 for your answers on GPL V3. Just watch how tottaly unaffected I am by all this.
So we should follow what you’re saying since you’re some kind of prophet? Right. If you’re not going to take legal advices from people on the net, do you think we are really going to get it from you, some folk who barely master the language the licence is written in?
If you did got an answer “from the same people”, then why don’t you share it with us. I would definitely like to read it. Or are you going to chicken out from this by saying that we should check it out by ourselves?
http://www.ulaval.ca/sg/annuaires/fac/drt.html
Go ask all your questions there , dont forget to bring a copy of your nice comment toward me , dont forget to ask
what could happen if the person on the receiving end decided to take you seriously.
I have asked for an apple and you’re giving me a cabbage. Shows how much credibility you have.
As for what could happen, please tell me. After all, if you’re competent as much as you’re pretentious…
> But since GPL v2 and GPL V3 is versionning , there is
> nothing stopping anyone from doing it.
Could you refer to a legally binding definition of “versionning” (sic)? A law or a precedence case perhaps?
– Morin
http://www.osdllinuxsummit.org/oss-and-the-law.htm
Track 1 – Session 3: GPL v.3 — Issues of Substance and Process
MCLE Credit – 1.5 hours
Presenter:
Prof. Eben Moglen
Professor of Law and History of
Law at Columbia University
For the last fifteen years, the Free and Open Software communities have
been well-served by the GNU General Public License, or GPL. In particular, the
famous “copyleft” provision has helped shape and sustain the unique
cohesion among FOSS developers. The GPL is arguably responsible for a significant portion of the success of the GNU/Linux operating system. The GPL has seen major revision only once. However, to address recent challenges to the
core concepts of free software, open source, and community IP, the GPL is again undergoing revision by its authors and other parties.
This presentation will cover the changes needed in a 3.0 version of the
GPL, both to reflect lessons learned in the decade-long history of version 2.0
and to meet the evolving challenges to come. The session will also frame
the current debate about re-versioning the GPL and examine the process
involved in this important step in the evolution of FOSS. In this session
will cover:
* Substantive changes the GPL v3 needs in light of experience with GPL v2
* The new and evolving challenges the GPL v3 must meet
* The discussion and decision processes used in the adoption of GPL v3
“The people who contributed to Linux did not choose to do that”
some of them did…
Alan Cox is usually a fairly good counterpoint to Linus, but in this case I have to agree with Linus. Some form of DRM will have to be created if for no other reason then for security of the net at large, and individual computers. For any such scheme to work, DRM support will have to be in the kernel. The only question I have is whether Raymond is against DRM schemes with open architectures/standards that aren’t controlled by one interest.
If the DRM clauses don’t really matter, then why bother to change the licence?
Furthermore, the possibility of showing copyright notices in a window isn’t applicable to the kernel while he is a bit hazy with the contentious stuff. Now, better licence compatibility would be very nice, but would it be worthwhile to recode parts of the kernel stuck with the GPLv2? For instance, it would be unproductive to rewrite 50% of the code for a few thousand lines of new code.
Personally, I wouldn’t even worry about it until v3 is actually out.
My 2c:
The GPL v2 was allowed to age and go unchanged and unimproved for too long. In the meantime, other F/OSS communities made progress on the license front. Apache, Eclipse, Mozilla, OpenSolaris and OSI have worked out the kinks over the years. So it’s no surprise that Moglen/RMS/FSF are taking much of those efforts into account for GPLv3.
For example, three other so-called GPL-incompatible F/OSS licenses have earned this compliment from RMS: “We don’t think [these provisions] are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL” See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
OSI, Apache, Eclipse, OpenSolaris, Mozilla.org, etc. And now Moglen/RMS/FSF. More unified we have never been. I think Alan C. sees that.
Exciting times if you ask me.
Eric Boutilier
OpenSolaris
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/eric_boutilier
And it is wrong to use DRM to keep someone from secretly changing the OS in voting machines, MRI machines, the Sony PS2 and nuclear missles.
Anything that uses DRM to prevent tampering will not be able to use Linux if it goes GPLv3.
Not from my understanding and the explanation given by Moglen. Basically, what the GPL3 says is that if your program needs private keys to run, you will have to also provide the private keys *or* provide keygen program to generate new keys. It would not prevent a secure voting machine from being created or prevent a proper DRM system from being create. What it would prevent is the situation where the only way you can actually use a piece of GPLed software is if you buy a key.
I guess we should all run out and license everything under GPL3 then. So does he like Pepsi or Coke?
GPLv3 is a good thing, some finesse and tweaking and it will be MY license of choice and my OS will be GPLv3!
Alan Cox is a good level headed clear thinking kind of guy that doesnt act brash and mouthy! I stand behind Alan and hope he does what is needed to try to keep this on track!
I hope linux or any gpl software is not used to control nuclear missles or any form of weapons.
bsd licenced could in theory, thats onc of the reasons the license is less favourable (in my opinion)
I hope linux or any gpl software is not used to control nuclear missles or any form of weapons.
You’d rather have them run Windows instead?
You’d rather have them run Windows instead?
Good one he he worth a chuckle.
I hope linux or any gpl software is not used to control nuclear missles or any form of weapons.
Brightened my day!
>>”The right to relicense a work (just like the right to redistribute)
>>is automatically reserved to the author.”
>Thats whats special about the GPL , its using
>copyright law to give same ownership level to the next user.
No, the GPL nor any other licence can legally do this. You can redistribute the code in anyway you like but ONLY under the licence (GPL v2 in this case) that it comes with. This licence must also be included if you choose to redistrubute (read: use) the code elsewhere. I.E. your own programs. ONLY the copyright holder can relicence the work.
>>”You do not have the same rights as the copyright holder.”
>Thats where your wrong , those right are granted by the GPL license.
No, this is completely false. You either:
A) Don’t understand anything about copyright law or
B) Are just making up what you want to believe, because this has NO basis in reality.
>>”Under copyright law, all rights are reserved to the author unless specified otherwise in the license.”
>Thats what the GPL does …
No, it doesn’t. This is legally impossible.
I’m not even going to start replying to your other comments because you have simply failed to understand what copyright law is and I am not prepared to educate you, I suggest the use of google.
Edited 2006-02-01 05:56
I think that what I learned from your comment is that if I need a copyright lawyer or any legal advice I whont be seeking you out at all , which would be a probelem in itself as I doubt your real name is Fsck , thanks for the laugh.
if linus thinks ver3 is a “new” license then RMS should just call it the updated v2 and then everyone would have to fall in line right…????
It doesn’t work that way. The absolute control of a project lies in the hands of the copyright owner, not the licence writer. The licence found with a project is the only one binding an user to some obligations. Making revisions to a document makes it a new one that is not replacing existing copies *unless the licence states so*.
Think about it. If a licence writer could make changes that would be applied retroactively to projects, he could make a little revision where he claims ownership on any work using it…
No, they don’t. The Linux kernel was licensed under the exact wording of GPL v2, nothing else. Changing the wording does not apply those changes retroactively.
good point!
good point! (oops clicked too soon)
But doesnt the GPL mention future updates and changes may occur so by accepting the gpl arent you also accepting those changes and updates?
I don’t think that Moulinneuf is totally wrong here. Although I doubt it is as simple as he makes it sound.
The difficulty in grokking this issue is part and parcel of the geniuos of the GPL.
You cannot explain the principle of copyleft from the principle of copyright- and vice-versa. It has become somewhat passe to use copyright justifications when explaining the GPL but the GPL is based on copy-left which in turn is AND is not based on copy-right.
Copy-left grants those rights which the author has, via copyright, to others. Copy-left, in effect, subsumes the exclusionary principle at work in “all rights reserved by” and makes this principle inclusionary.
The author (the legal subject of “all rights reserved by”) of the code is whoever distributes the code according to the GPL. If you do not distribute the code it is also yours(to do with as you like). If you distribute the code in non-accordance with the GPL the code does not belong to you and thus you are violating copyright-because you are not granting others the rights you recieved when recieving the code.
The principle behind copy-left can be so paraphrased:
“I wish to share my work with others and I wish others to share their contributions with me and others so that each and every person who contributes becomes collective authors of THE work of which all contributors are a part.”
This stance is the logical opposite of copyright which in principle is totally exclusionary. Copyleft is only based on copyright to the extent that the principle of copyleft is held to be right of the author, the legal subject of “all rights reserved by”. In effect Copyleft is further based of copyright in that distributing the code in non-accordance with the GPL means to violate the originary right of the author-as a distributor of code you are bound in terms of obligations to the originary right of the author-accordance with the GPL means further granting of this right to others when distributing the code.
At least in theory as long as the license under which the code is distributed does not abridge the rights and obligations-(ie. preserves and further grants these) under which the code was recieved there is no need to relicense. This theory is the theory of GPL compatibility. This theory is not based on copyright. It is a theory of copyleft. The GPL v.3 is de jure compatible with GPL v.2. GPL v.3 is probably a superset of GPL v.2 ie. almost(?) all software which is GPL v.2 compatible with GPL v.3. and additionally the GPL v.3 is compatible with some software which was not compatible with GPL v.2.
Copyleft is a question of spirit. Copyright is a question of law. Legally one would need to relicense the Linux kernel(each and every kernel contribution) to GPL v.3 if it were to go before a court of law. But in the absence of legal contention from the standpoint of the GPL there is no problem relisenscing the SUM as GPL v.3.
The question then becomes whether or not any of the contributors are so virulently opposed to GPL v.3 that they would be willing to go to court to prevent such a relisenscing (spelling?). The question as to how one would go about relisenscing the contributions of those who are deceased boils down to : did those who contributed to the kernel realize that in so doing they were embracing the copyleft spirit of the GPL ? The pragmatist may state that the GPL is merely a legal document which serves a specific legal function-but accordance with the GPl is in the first instance a question of spirit not of law. The GPL is decidedly non-pragmatic.
Just as a footnote. The GPL has been subject to legal review in a handful of cases in courts around the world. I have tried to follow up on the court opinions in these cases and of those cases where I succeeded here is what I noticed. To the extent that the GPL violation could be explained as a copyright violation the judges treated it as such and had no problems. But they could not even address the copyleft dimension of the GPL at all. They attempted, dancing around the issue, to point to the good spirit of the GPL but there is no legal basis to deal with it all whatsoever. Indidivual judges called the GPL a good thing but they could not legally argue its tenents.
IBM has raised the copyleft issue of the GPL directly in its attempt to have the court refute SCO’s right to distribute GPL software- how I long to read what the court has to say when directly confronted with the coplyleft dimension of the GPL.
(now I may be wrong in what I have written here but this is what I have grokked. IANAL)
> The GPL v.3 is de jure compatible with GPL v.2. GPL v.3 is probably a superset of
> GPL v.2 ie. almost(?) all software which is GPL v.2 compatible with GPL v.3.
> and additionally the GPL v.3 is compatible with some software which was not
> compatible with GPL v.2.
This might be true (hard to say since v3 is not out yet), but the problem is not (only) whether the current kernel is *compatible* with v3 (read: the original author would be allowed to use v3 for it). It need also be licensed under v3 (read: the original author *did* use v3 for it). Especially with v3 being compatible with *more* software than v2, v3 will allow modification which was impossible under v2, and hence requires the authors to agree.
BTW the argument works both with a stricter v3 and a more relaxed v3: Nobody but the original author can relicense the relevant parts (1) with a stricter v3, because v2 doesn’t allow additional constraints, or (2) with a relaxed v3 because the original author didn’t grant you those additional rights.
> The question then becomes whether or not any of the contributors are so
> virulently opposed to GPL v.3 that they would be willing to go to court to
> prevent such a relisenscing (spelling?).
Well, if they are not opposed to v3, they could just as well relicense their own code to v3, which would be perfectly legal.
> The question as to how one would go about relisenscing the
> contributions of those who are deceased boils down to : did those who contributed
> to the kernel realize that in so doing they were embracing the copyleft
> spirit of the GPL ? The pragmatist may state that the GPL is merely a legal
> document which serves a specific legal function-but accordance with the GPl
> is in the first instance a question of spirit not of law. The GPL is
> decidedly non-pragmatic.
Disclaimer: IANAL. But I would be rather upset if anybody bends and twists the meaning of a license that I granted to others, based on their (at best) vague understanding of *why* I chose that license. I could think of a hundred other reasons which have nothing to do with the goals or the spirit of free software (for example, open-source software as a development method).
To make this clear: If anybody, and be it a court, ever changes a legal document written by me (or ‘used’ as programmers use the GPL), based on their vague assumptions about my intentions, then I consider it a perversion of the legal system that Microsoft and similar big fish could look up to.
– Morin
You cannot explain the principle of copyleft from the principle of copyright- and vice-versa. It has become somewhat passe to use copyright justifications when explaining the GPL but the GPL is based on copy-left which in turn is AND is not based on copy-right.
“Copyleft” is not a legal construct. The GPL is a copyright license, nothing more nothing less. Any and all power it has derives from copyright law, and anything it does or does not do is based in copyright law. From the GPL FAQ:
How do I get a copyright on my program in order to release it under the GPL?
Under the Berne Convention, everything written is automatically copyrighted from whenever it is put in fixed form. So you don’t have to do anything to “get” the copyright on what you write–as long as nobody else can claim to own your work.
The Berne Convention is, of course, a primary treaty of copyright law.
Copy-left grants those rights which the author has, via copyright, to others. Copy-left, in effect, subsumes the exclusionary principle at work in “all rights reserved by” and makes this principle inclusionary.
It doesn’t say anything like that in the GPL. Read it yourself.
“Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.”
“Relicensing” is an activity other than “copying, distribution, and modification”. Indeed, changing the license is expressly forbidden in the GPL:
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
(Emphasis mine).
Finally, even the GPL FAQ says users cannot change the license:
heard that someone got a copy of a GPL’ed program under another license. Is this possible?
The GNU GPL does not give users permission to attach other licenses to the program. But the copyright holder for a program can release it under several different licenses in parallel. One of them may be the GNU GPL.
Please stop reading things into the GPL that are not there.
This theory is the theory of GPL compatibility. This theory is not based on copyright. It is a theory of copyleft.
Compatibility would be determined by copyright law, not the spirit of copyleft
The GPL v.3 is de jure compatible with GPL v.2.
The GPL is, all other things being equal, forward compatible. It is not backward compatible as the GPLv3 adds additional terms and restrictions (or rather it will once it is finalized). So you cannot distribute a combined work consisting of GPLv2 and GPLv3 licensed code. In order to release that code you would need to do 1 of 2 possible things: 1) dual license the GPLv3 code under GPLv2 as well, or 2) rerelease the GPLv2 code under the GPLv# license.
GPL v.3 is probably a superset of GPL v.2 ie.
Yes, this is basically correct.
almost(?) all software which is GPL v.2 compatible with GPL v.3.
Did you mean to say that “all software which is GPL v.2 is also compatible with GPL v.3.”?
If so, you’re incorrect here. The GPLv3 is, as you said, basically a superset of GPLv2. That is, the GPLv3 includes more than the GPLv2, and in particular it addds additions restrictions on what the recipient of the code can do with it, which is an express violation of the GPLv2.
additionally the GPL v.3 is compatible with some software which was not compatible with GPL v.2.
True. The GPLv3 is (or will be) compatible with more FOSS licenses than is the GPLv2. But are you possible confusing license compatibility with the right to relicense? That might be at the root of your misunderstanding.
Let’s say, license A is compatible with licenses B, C, and D, where compatible is defined as having terms which allow for combined distribution. I can thus take code licensed under A and combine it with code licensed under B and then release the combined work, but the code from A and B will each retain their respective licenses. My having combined them does allow me to relicense the code under A such that it now falls under B, or vice versa.
Unless, of course, we’re talking about BSD, MIT, Artistic, or Apache licensed code, which expressly grants permission to relicense the code to anyone who is in possesion of it. The “freedom” to relicense is what has always been at the root of the epic BSD vs GPL flamewar.
I don’t recall reading anywhere that Torvalds is not supporting GPLv3. He’s just not considering it for use with the Linux Kernel as it currently looks like (note that “GPLv3” doesn’t exist in any way, shape or form except as a draft, and thus will be subject to change which most likely will make all the discussion going on about what, when and how, moot). So how Cox’s “support” is in direct contradiction with Torvalds’ refusal to consider a still to materialize GPLv3 for the linux kernel is probably a matter of journalistic freedom.
Did you see the banter between those two about a year ago concerning the matter? You would know that they *were* and probably still are on opposite sides of the issue…