Buying the kernel
Mr. Merkey claimed to have disposed of the Novell issue by means of having filed a sexual harassment suit against the company, but life was not to be so easy. The closure of Timpanogas was announced in 2001:
One would think that Mr. Merkey would have had enough intellectual property litigation for one life, but that appears to not be the case. He recently resurfaced on linux-kernel with this interesting offer:
The offer has spawned a number of side conversations on what an insultingly inadequate offer $50,000 really is. Certainly any number of companies would jump at the chance to pick up a non-GPL version of the kernel at that price. But such discussions - and the offer itself - miss the real point.
Unlike many other large free software projects, the kernel does not require any sort of copyright assignment from contributors. Those who get code merged into the kernel retain their copyrights on that code. As a result, the kernel has hundreds - if not thousands - of copyright holders. Getting them all to agree on a licensing change would be a challenging task. Simply finding them all is likely to be beyond just about anybody's capabilities.
Critics of the kernel's organization claim that the lack of copyright assignment exposes the kernel to legal claims. They also state that the absence of a single copyright holder makes it difficult to enforce the GPL against those who fail to respect its terms. In response, one can point out that a copyright assignment would have been unlikely to deter the SCO Group from its campaign against IBM, and that the Netfilter team has been doing an admirable job of copyright enforcement.
What widely distributed copyright ownership does do, however, is to make a relicensing of the code impractical, if not impossible. We need not worry that Linus will someday succumb to temptation and sell out the kernel. Some developers are suspicious of OSDL, but none fear that it will start selling off private versions of the kernel to well-heeled companies. For all that some people like to compare certain distributors with Microsoft, those distributors will never get into a position where they are shipping proprietary Linux kernels.
Given this context, one wonders what Mr. Merkey thought he would be able to
accomplish. There is no risk of him being able to buy himself a GPL
exception for the kernel. The structure of the kernel's ownership is such
that taking it private is not a practical possibility. This discussion is
done; we must confess, however, to a certain curiosity about what
Mr. Merkey's next scheme will be.
| Index entries for this article | |
|---|---|
| Kernel | Copyright issues |
Posted Oct 14, 2004 4:42 UTC (Thu)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link] (3 responses)
As closed source, the Linux kernel is worth millions, not $50,000. He might as well ask Sun what they would charge for BSD-ing Solaris.
Posted Oct 14, 2004 19:12 UTC (Thu)
by AJWM (guest, #15888)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Oct 14, 2004 19:31 UTC (Thu)
by chad.netzer (subscriber, #4257)
[Link]
But, yes, I read an interview with Paul, where he said he and John were hanging out and thought about going down there.
Posted Oct 15, 2004 19:36 UTC (Fri)
by Baylink (guest, #755)
[Link]
Posted Oct 14, 2004 6:19 UTC (Thu)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (5 responses)
Next time, don't waste your time on him. Bruce
Posted Oct 14, 2004 7:41 UTC (Thu)
by vblum (guest, #1151)
[Link]
(b) Merkey's proposal is a great pretext for the excellent summary above: how distributed copyright and the GPL together play together.
A good many people still do not understand what the GPL actually means, and how copyright works with it to ensure that no one can legally abduct this type of free software project even by a large-scale bribery. This is the "insurance policy" which gives a lot of (normally) competitors enough trust into one another to work openly.
Again, I still encounter too many people who do not understand the value of this arrangement. Nice summary, Jon.
Posted Oct 14, 2004 17:26 UTC (Thu)
by dwheeler (guest, #1216)
[Link] (3 responses)
It's the entertainment value of what he said, not who said it.
And it's a nice excuse to jump off and think about more interesting topics, like copyright law implications and effort estimations, that don't normally get covered.
Posted Oct 14, 2004 23:37 UTC (Thu)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link] (1 responses)
Well, not's not confuse apples with oranges.
First of all, Merkey did not offer to buy the copyright. He offered to buy a copyright license. The crucial difference is that if his offer were accepted, everyone else would continue to have the right to distribute and modify the Linux kernel.
Second, in any pricing, there are two sides -- what it's worth to the buyer and what it's worth to the seller. Microsoft would have to demand a huge sum for a copyright license to Windows because Microsoft would lose a ton of revenue to the competition. What do the Linux copyright holders have to lose? A lot less.
Third, I doubt that redeveloping the Linux kernel is Merkey's second best alternative, so the license is worth nowhere near $612M to him.
It would be really interesting to see someone like Merkey just go ahead and take the code and settle the claims of the copyright holders as they come forth. The damages under law might be pretty reasonable.
Posted Oct 18, 2004 17:16 UTC (Mon)
by hppnq (guest, #14462)
[Link]
If you think in terms of money only.
Posted Oct 15, 2004 21:30 UTC (Fri)
by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
[Link]
Posted Oct 14, 2004 8:45 UTC (Thu)
by pointwood (guest, #2814)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 14, 2004 21:15 UTC (Thu)
by titousensei (guest, #4144)
[Link]
Posted Oct 14, 2004 10:17 UTC (Thu)
by gravious (guest, #7662)
[Link] (16 responses)
a) Place a statement somewhere in the kernel source stating that if a copyright holder for a piece of code is not found or is unknown the copyright reverts to Linus or the OSDL or some body like that.
b) Have a statement somewhere in the kernel source saying that if you hack on the kernel that you agree to sell snapshots of the kernel relicensed under BSD licence or whatever at say so many dollars or euro per _line_ (I'm thinking millions here) if the offer is made. The money could go to funding open source drivers or other good stuff. I think this would be an interesting GPL clause to allow hackers to generate wealth from their code.
What does everyone think? Slap me and I'll go back into my cage if I'm being silly :)
Posted Oct 14, 2004 11:12 UTC (Thu)
by copsewood (subscriber, #199)
[Link] (14 responses)
Not an easy, or in my view a likely prospect.
Posted Oct 14, 2004 12:33 UTC (Thu)
by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
[Link] (13 responses)
Suppose, as an example and illustration only, that I was the guy who, in 1992 (this is just an example), wrote the original mutex implementation. Suppose, furthermore, I fell out of the surface of the world yesterday -- I went to live in the Tibet, up the Himalaya, and no-one can contact me. Suppose there is not one line of kernel code that I wrote in the current kernel, but suppose, too, that all implementations of mutex are derived from one another, adding things, removing things -- ie. making TRANSFORMATIONS to my code --, till you get to the current status quo.
The current author of the mutex code has no right to relicense it. Period. It's a derived work, and I (as a copyright owner of the original code) have a MONOPOLY on what can be done with ALL derived works. And the only thing I have authorized before getting out of touch is to license them under the GPL.
IMHO, the thing stretches even more: as lots of things in the rest of the kernel are derived works from my work, those can't be relicensed too. More: imagine, graphically, if you "yank" the current mutex implementation from the kernel. You would have to write (clean-room) something that fits in the "void/hole" left behind. But to do this, you would have probably to use other code that is derived on my code... gotcha! Your code now is derived from mine and you have no other option to distribute it than doing it under the terms of the GPL.
Point being: the linux kernel is, for all purposes, un-relicensable in practice. This is a GOOD THING. It's even safer than the FSF social contract in assuring the code will remain GPL'd and won't ever be closed. I explain myself: in the case of a liquidation (if the FSF went bankrupt), the successor could close-source all of the GNU code, because it all belongs to the FSF. Obviously, forks could be made, but the damage would have been done.
To prove me wrong, you would have to make a directed graph of copyrightable chunks of the kernel and/or kernel patches, where the chunks are the nodes and the derivation relation are the edges. Then, if you find any clicks (and I don't believe it for a moment), you can in theory remove that click and rewrite it.
Posted Oct 14, 2004 16:15 UTC (Thu)
by bfields (subscriber, #19510)
[Link] (3 responses)
Is that really likely?
In any case, even if the FSF were somehow completely taken over, wouldn't there still be the problem of breaking all the contracts the FSF has signed with copyright assigners? I seem to recall their standard assignment agreement including a clause where the FSF promises that the licensing of the code will always be "in the spirit of" the GPL, or something like that.
I doubt the GNU stuff is really at any more risk of proprietary branches than is Linux.
--Bruce Fields
Posted Oct 14, 2004 23:19 UTC (Thu)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link] (2 responses)
"successor" here means the person who bought the former assets of FSF, in particular, its copyrights. That person is not a party to the contract under which the author assigned the copyright, so he's not bound by anything in it.
On the other hand, it is common in contracts like this to say that the assignment is revocable and in the event the copyright is ever transferred, the assignment is revoked -- a poison pill. I wonder if the FSF contract has that.
Some US states view some such clauses as an interference with free trade that is not in the public interest and won't enforce them. And maybe copyright law (I know contracts, not copyright) makes a revocable assignment impossible.
Posted Oct 21, 2004 11:25 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
"successor" here means the person who bought the former assets of FSF, in particular, its copyrights. That person is not a party to the contract under which the author assigned the copyright, so he's not bound by anything in it. OH YES HE IS !!! Let's say I buy your house and give you 100K for it. I then go bankrupt and the mortgagor repossess it. You'd scream blue murder if the mortgagor then proceeded also to reclaim the 100K I gave you for it - you've lost the house, and you've lost what was paid for it!
If the contract by which the FSF purchased the copyrights has covenants on it, then even a "successor in bankruptcy" can't ignore those covenants - to do so voids the original sale because the successor-in-interest has reneged on the original price. Cheers,
Posted Oct 21, 2004 16:14 UTC (Thu)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
You got your example backwards. To be analogous to the FSF copyright assignment case, it would be: Instead of giving me 100K for my house, you promise to pay me 100K next year -- and without a security agreement (i.e. collateral, e.g. mortgage). The bank (who is btw the mortgagee, not the mortgagor) repossesses and I then try to get my 100K from the bank. I will not succeed. If you're broke, I've lost my 100K and my house.
If the contract by which the FSF purchased the copyrights has covenants
The only kind of property I've ever heard of with the ability to have a convenant run with the title is real property. In a contract, a "covenant" is nothing but a promise from one person to another and exists independent of any property whose transfer might also be part of the contract.
There is a special case (isn't there always) where there is an automatic "purchase money lien," but that doesn't apply here.
the successor-in-interest has reneged on the original price.
He can renege only if he was obligated to pay the price in the first place, which I say he wasn't. Successor in interest is a fairly recent invention in law, which means it is applied inconsistently from one jurisdiction and circumstance to the next. For example, in California if you buy most of the assets of a business and continue to operate it as essentially the same business, you become liable for the seller's unpaid sales tax under a successor in interest law. But it definitely doesn't say that any time property changes hands, it's an assignment of all the contracts of sale under which it previously changed hands.
That's why people execute security agreements (liens) and file them in a public office when they sell property. Then a subsequent transferee has a chance to know he might owe some 3rd party additional money for the property (not really -- he still doesn't assume any obligations -- he just might have to hand over the property). Without it, the 1st party has no claim against the 3rd.
Posted Oct 14, 2004 16:18 UTC (Thu)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (1 responses)
The current author of the mutex code has no right to relicense it. Period. It's a derived work, and I (as a copyright owner of the original code) have a MONOPOLY on what can be done with ALL derived works. And the only thing I have authorized before getting out of touch is to license them under the GPL. IMHO, the thing stretches even more: as lots of things in the rest of the kernel are derived works from my work, those can't be relicensed too. More: imagine, graphically, if you "yank" the current mutex implementation from the kernel. You would have to write (clean-room) something that fits in the "void/hole" left behind. But to do this, you would have probably to use other code that is derived on my code... gotcha! Your code now is derived from mine and you have no other option to distribute it than doing it under the terms of the GPL. Do you work for SCO ? This is exactly what they try claim, you know. The truth is that the only thing you can compare is your code before Tibet expedition and current code in kernel. And you can not appeal to "ideas": you need something textually similar (trivial modifications like variables renaming is Ok, complete rewrite is not). It's difference between copyright and patent... It's not so hard to create clean-room implementation if really needed: you ask some fellow to write API starting from point where mutex code is still in kernel and then you ask other person to reimplement API. What you'll get if API was without code snippets and without parts of you code big enough to be copyrightable is new code without any relation to original mutex implementation. The real problem lies not in bare need to reimplement something but in sheer number of things included in kernel...
Posted Oct 15, 2004 21:23 UTC (Fri)
by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
[Link]
Posted Oct 14, 2004 22:24 UTC (Thu)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link]
I [should] explain myself: in the case of a liquidation (if the FSF went bankrupt), the successor could close-source all of the GNU code, because it all belongs to the FSF. More precisely, the successor organisation (as owner of the copyright title) could issue additional code instances under proprietary licences. Recipients of the existing instances would immediately fork off the earlier codebase and continue exactly as before -- classifying the successor group as damage and routing around it. A few people have asserted that the new copyright holder could in some fashion retroactively terminate redistribution of the existing codebase instances and development of derivative works, but I'll believe that when I see a relevant appelate court judgement. Rick Moen
Posted Oct 14, 2004 22:45 UTC (Thu)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link] (2 responses)
[I missed this bit, earlier, or I would have included it in my other reply.] hummassa wrote: [Most of mutex hypothetical snipped.] But to do this, you would have probably to use other code that is derived on my code... gotcha! Your code now is derived from mine and you have no other option to distribute it than doing it under the terms of the GPL. This is a persistent misconception that I would like to see disappear, finally, from licensing discussions. If my derivative work has been issued under terms incompatible with those of your original, you have zero power to force me to do anything. What you have is a tort claim against me. This entitles you to take me to court, prove your copyright title, attempt to enjoin me from further infringement, and possibly extract monetary damages. You could not twist my arm into releasing my code under any terms at all, because you would simply not have any ownership interest in my additions, only in your original work. What free / open-source software people seem to fail to realise is that licensing conflicts come up in business all the time, and the outcome is never that the infringing firm "has no option but" to issue an instance of its derivative creation under some licence or other. Firm A accidentally includes business partner Firm B's proprietary code in its binary derivative of an upstream GPLed utility from Coder D. Firm C downloads it, and requests matching source code under GPLv2 clause 3b. Does Firm A comply? Probably not. It will probably tell Firm C "Sorry, our binary release was accidental and has been removed from our ftp site". Violating Firm B's contract and shafting a business partner would be a serious legal matter; a brief, accidental, already-corrected infringement of Coder D's copyright is not. Rick Moen
Posted Oct 15, 2004 21:24 UTC (Fri)
by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 16, 2004 20:09 UTC (Sat)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link]
But you emphasized just my point: If the derived code author wants to distribute it, the original code author eventually can stop him -- via a tort.
Actually, you're completely disregarding my correction and changing the subject: You were saying that the author of the derivative work "has no option" but to distribute it under the upstream work's terms. My point was that this is absolutely false -- and is a very common error.
Rick Moen
Posted Oct 15, 2004 3:00 UTC (Fri)
by jamesh (guest, #1159)
[Link] (1 responses)
I think you are wrong here. If the FSF went bankrupt and someone bought their assets, they couldn't just buy the copyrights, they'd be buying the copyright assignment contracts signed by the original copyright holders. Unlike some copyright assignment contracts, the FSF one actually places some restrictions on what the assignee can do with the work. For instance, there is the 1999 contract I signed for some modifications to a GNU program included the following text: If the FSF or its assignees (that would include people who bought their assets in the case of bankruptcy) do not abide by the terms, then there is no contract and ownership of the copyright would revert. Do you really think an organisation smart enough to come up with the GPL would leave such a large loophole in their assignment contracts?
Posted Oct 15, 2004 21:26 UTC (Fri)
by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
[Link]
I apologize for talking thru parts of my body not engineered no evolved for talking :-)
Posted Nov 1, 2004 13:28 UTC (Mon)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link]
Posted Oct 14, 2004 22:16 UTC (Thu)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link]
Out of interest would it be possible to do either of the following two things? a) Place a statement somewhere in the kernel source stating that if a copyright holder for a piece of code is not found or is unknown the copyright reverts to Linus or the OSDL or some body like that. Per copyright law (in the USA and all similar jurisdictions), ownership transfers of copyright title must be in writing, executed by the owner seeking to reassign ownership. So, no. Rick Moen
Posted Oct 22, 2004 20:05 UTC (Fri)
by huaz (guest, #10168)
[Link] (1 responses)
Just read all his emails. A sure tone of mocking. Do you believe that someone who tries to do his job actually insults the folks he needs to work with, again and again?
Posted Nov 1, 2004 16:06 UTC (Mon)
by qu1j0t3 (guest, #25786)
[Link]
Posted Nov 10, 2004 0:55 UTC (Wed)
by ggoebel (guest, #4487)
[Link] (2 responses)
I raised an eyebrow the first time I saw the emails that were purported to originate with Jeff Merkey. The guy has a more than healthy ego and a set of perogatives that have often been in less than harmony with the majority of the linux kernel mailing list. But he's not an idiot. In this light, it bears mentioning that Jeff Merkey has disavowed the emails that have gotten everyone all riled up. I.e., he says he didn't write them. You can read all about it in Kernel Traffic #283, A Little bit of SCO Status. I'm surprised LWN.net wasn't aware of it. I hope they bother to update the main story to reflect the fact that the claims they are making are disputed.
Posted Nov 10, 2004 1:06 UTC (Wed)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (1 responses)
But where, exactly, does he disavow his previous messages? I've seen nothing to that effect, and the message quoted in KT does not say that. He does complain about things which appeared on Groklaw; I've seen claims that people were posting false comments there in his name (but have not seen them myself). That doesn't extend to his linux-kernel postings, however, which, as far as I can tell, were real.
Posted Nov 10, 2004 11:20 UTC (Wed)
by ggoebel (guest, #4487)
[Link]
How about the 3rd paragraph: Perhaps I'm misreading it. After all he's not rejecting the emails which were posted to the kernel mailing list... Merkey is a contentious and provoking person. He'd be an interesting interview candidate. Though giving his swollen ego a chance to step up on a soap box in front of a large crowd would probably be a disservice to those people working hard in the trenches who go unnoticed.
In the early days of Saturday Night Live, the producer, Lorne Michaels, made an offer of $3000 to the Beatles to have a reunion on the show. This is in the same league.
Buying the kernel
I've heard tell that three of the Beatles (John, Paul and either Ringo or George, I forget which) were watching Saturday Night Live from John's apartment at the time. Paul thought it'd be a hoot to surprise SNL (who clearly were joking about the offer) by showing up that evening, and had convinced the other two to go along with it. Before they got a taxi, though, one (John?) had to go back to the apartment for something and they then decided not to bother.Buying the kernel
I seem to recall that George was actually part of that episode. He showed up at the end, and they showed him and Lorne talking, with Lorne explaining under his breath , "I can only give you the money if all the Beatles show up..."Buying the kernel
That's similar to the anecdote as Spider Robinson tells it in Lifehouse, his sequel to Deathkiller. The punchline is that Leonard Bernstein had reportedly offered then a million dollars a couple weeks earlier.SNL/Beatles
What I don't understand is why Mr. Merkey got so much publicity. Here's a fellow who showed a complete and utter ignorance of the basic concepts of copyright and work-for-hire when he left Novell, and paid for it big-time. In the doing, he really did contaminate the Linux kernel with Novell's intellectual property. We should be majorly annoyed with him for that but, fortunately for us, Novell has never wanted to take us to task for it. He has since gone to work for Canopy Group, the main investor behind SCO, and when he went there he sold his copyright interest in the kernel to Canopy.Why does anyone care what Merkey thinks?
(a) Merkey's suggestion was truly entertaining [how could anyone familiar with Linux development ever come up with such an idea?]Why does anyone care what Merkey thinks?
I don't think many people care if it was Merkey or anyone else. It's just that Merkey gave such an insultingly low offer that it's bizarrely entertaining. He offered $50K; my calculations estimate that it would cost
$612 million (US) to redevelop the Linux kernel.
Even if he offered $612 million, I doubt the offer would be taken. Even if you managed to contact all copyright holders, I doubt they'd all agree to this.
But the offer provided is so low, compared to what's being requested, that nearly everyone is incredulous -- and I believe a lot of people are enjoying laughing at the offerer. If anyone had made the same offer to Microsoft, I suspect there'd be about as much laughter. I'm certain that Microsoft's leaders would have a good laugh if they were given an offer of $50K for the copyright to Windows or Office.
Why does anyone care what Merkey thinks?
Putting a price on it
He offered $50K; my calculations estimate that it would cost $612 million (US) to redevelop the Linux kernel.
I'm certain that Microsoft's leaders would have a good laugh if they were given an offer of $50K for the copyright to Windows or Office.
Putting a price on it
What do the Linux copyright holders have to lose? A lot less.
Your SLOCcount is a wonderfully useful tool. Thank you very much for it.absolutely OT
Linus should offer him a version of the first Linux release (0.1?) - I don't think any kernel devs would mind that :pBuying the kernel
it says a 2.x release. How about a 2.0 release? Is there much 2.0 code left in 2.4 or 2.6? Anyway $50K divided by the number of copyright holders is not a lot per persone.Buying the kernel
Out of interest would it be possible to do either of the following two things?Buying the kernel
I won't comment on b. Your suggestion a. would also need much more than a comment in source code to be effective. Essentially, as I understand this, to make it possible to transition to a more effective license in the spirit ofMaking kernel license upgradeable
the GPL (e.g. to a GPL version 3 or higher, if GPL v2 were to fail in a significant way in court) it would be neccessary to get all contributors to contribute on the revised basis, possibly requiring them to post new code with an appropriate copyright notice, contact all existing contributors, and phase out code contributed by deceased and uncontactable or unwilling existing contributors.
There is one thing even Jon forgot: even if you purge some parts owned by me from the kernel, you would have to use filtration-abstraction-comparison tests to determine if other people's copyrights are not derived from my work... If they are, independently of the will of the copyright owner, you cannot re-license it, too.Making kernel license upgradeable
Making kernel license upgradeable
in the case of a liquidation (if the FSF went bankrupt), the successor could close-source all of the GNU code, because it all belongs to the FSF.
Making kernel license upgradeable
even if the FSF were somehow completely taken over, wouldn't there still be the problem of breaking all the contracts the FSF has signed with copyright assigners? I seem to recall their standard assignment agreement including a clause where the FSF promises that the licensing of the code will always be "in the spirit of" the GPL, or something like that.
Making kernel license upgradeable
Wol
Let's say I buy your house and give you 100K for it. I then go bankrupt and the mortgagor repossess it. You'd scream blue murder if the mortgagor then proceeded also to reclaim the 100K I gave you for it - you've lost the house, and you've lost what was paid for it!
Making kernel license upgradeable
Making kernel license upgradeable
Seriously, you have to abstract-filter-compare. In the case of SCO, once you abstract and filter System V versus Linux, NOTHING is left to be compared. You can search for yourself if you don't believe me.No one is prosco here :-)
hummassa wrote:
Making kernel license upgradeable
rick@linuxmafia.com
Making kernel license upgradeable
rick@linuxmafia.com
But you emphasized just my point: If the derived code author wants to distribute it, the original code author eventually can stop him -- via a tort.You misinterpreted me
hummassa wrote:
You misinterpreted me
rick@linuxmafia.com
Making kernel license upgradeable
It's even safer than the FSF social contract in assuring the code will remain GPL'd and won't ever be closed. I explain myself: in the case of a liquidation (if the FSF went bankrupt), the successor could close-source all of the GNU code, because it all belongs to the FSF.
The Foundation promises that all distribution of the Work, or of
any work "based on the Work", that takes place under the control of
the Foundation or its assignees, shall be on terms that explicitly
and perpetually permit anyone possessing a copy of the work to
which the terms apply, and possessing accurate notice of these
terms, to redistribute copies of the work to anyone on the same
terms. These terms shall not restrict which members of the public
copies may be distributed to. These terms shall not require a
member of the public to pay any royalty to the Foundation or to
anyone else for any permitted use of the work they apply to, or to
communicate with the Foundation or its agents in any way either
when redistribution is performed or on any other occasion.
I was under the assumption -- the WRONG assumption -- that original copyright holders just waived their (c)s to the FSF, no strings attached. This would be silly and I recognize it.In this point, I stand corrected.
A 501(c)3 corporation can only dispose of its assets <i>to another 501(c)3</i> in case of liquidation. It's part of the IRS rules. And any successor in assignment to FSF's property would be bound by contracts of FSF, including the copyright grant covenants. So, I don't think it's possible for closed relicensing to happen.<p><i>Bruce</i>Making kernel license upgradeable
gravious wrote:
Buying the kernel
rick@linuxmafia.com
Jeff Merkey is not serious. He is just trying to annoy or irrigate them.Buying the kernel
Buying the kernel
Jeff Merkey is not serious
He sounds serious to me, not to mention seriously unhinged...
Merkey's emails were spoofed?
I saw the message quoted in KT; elected to leave it out because there had been too much Merkey stuff in LWN already.
Merkey's emails were spoofed?
Merkey's emails were spoofed?
Linus Torvalds (and myself) are entitled to apolgies
from GrokLaw, and SCO regarding their false and misleading
claims Linus missappropriated trade secrets or infringed
their copyrights and that I was involved in a scheme with
SCO to further their false, misleading, and libelous
allegations. Groklaw has also posted numerous emails and
comments attributed to me which I did not author which
libel Linus and myself, and were designed to create and
perpetuate animosity in the Linux Community.