Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Aug 2007 21:37 UTC
Novell and Ximian In the wake of last week's ruling that Novell, and not SCO, controls the copyrights covering UNIX, Novell is reassuring Unix users that it has no plans to follow in SCO's footsteps. Given that the company is no longer in the business of selling UNIX, it has no reason to pursue any copyright claims.
Thread beginning with comment 264145
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

unless the Linux kernel maintainers got an easily bribed judge to preside over the case, they would be forced to comply with the contributor's new license terms or cease use of that contributor's code.

This is in one way correct. No-one is forced to license new code any one way or another. If a Linux kernel contributor suddenly decided their new code was to be proprietary licensed, then indeed the Linux kernel devs would cease to accept new contributions from that person.

Doesn't mean squat for any previous contributions however ... they would still be released under GPL, and the Linux kernel could still use them and redistribute the whole kernel under the GPL.

It'd probably get the contributor threatened and harmed in various ways by the more radical members of the Linux community, but it'd be all within their rights.

Harmed? That is FUD and/or malicious lying pure & simple.

Firstly, it is very difficult to get your code accepted into the Linux kernel ... not the other way around ... it isn't as though Linux is desperate for contributions or anything. If any contributor was getting difficult to relate with, it would simply become a case of "so long, and thanks for all the fish".

In fact, there was a case like this recently with the "CK" scheduler vs the CFS scheduler. The kernel lost a talented contributor, but que sera, life moves on ... and so on. Anyone "come to harm?" ... hardly.

Edited 2007-08-17 13:32

Reply Parent Score: 2