Re: Controversy over dynamic linking -- how to end the panic

[Andrew Pimlott]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 04:13:22PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Andrew Pimlott <[e-mail]>:
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 03:17:16PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > > IANAL, but I believe that Linus's position as anthology copyright holder
> > > makes him privileged in this respect.
> > 
> > Regardless of what you find in the books, recall that Linus has
> > stated that decentralizing the copyright of Linux was a goal, so you
> > may not find him willing to claim an "anthology copyright" (if such
> > a thing even applies to the kernel, which in my NAL opinion, it does
> > not).
> 
> Linus *is*, however, implicitly claiming the authority to make license
> policy on behalf of the other copyright holders in cases where the GPL
> is unclear.
> 
> In COPYING, Linus says that that the version of GPL applying to the
> kernel is v2 unless explicitly otherwise stated.  He has also already
> issued the interpretation that normal system calls from userland do
> not create a derivation relationship.
> 
> I consider Linus to have the moral right to make these decisions, whether
> or not the law gives him a formal legal right to do so.  All I have done
> is propose that he be more explicit about his policy in order to prevent
> needless confusion and nervousness.

I agree entirely that Linus, as creator of the license, is
privileged with respect to interpretation of the license.  I
disagree however with your suggestion that he is privileged with
respect to the copyright (eg the ability to sue or relicense),
especially since his own words (cited earlier) read like a
disclaimer of such privilege.

I basically support your position.

Andrew