On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Matthias Maier <tam...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016, at 09:11 CDT, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under >> trademark law than copyright law. That is why the FSF publishes the >> "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and not just the "GENERAL PUBLIC >> LICENSE." The former has far more trademark protection than the >> latter. > > What? > > No, this is *not* how it works. > > A license text is an original piece of work that falls under copyright > protection.
We're not talking about the text of the license in the paragraph above. We're talking about the title of the license. > In this case the copyright holder is the > > »The Linux Foundation and its contributors«. Well, there is no statement of copyright in this file: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches But, I don't dispute that the Linux Foundation and its contributors hold the copyright. > > The terms of distribution are > > »Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this > license document, but changing it is not allowed.« > That text does not appear anywhere in the file I linked. The GPL does, however. > > You cannot simply copy a substantial amount of text into your work (no > matter what it is) if you do not have the right to do so. > I agree. I certainly wouldn't do it if the Linux Foundation hadn't published it under the GPL. >> The Linux Foundation published a version of their DCO under the GPL, >> which we would of course abide by. > > I highly doubt that, see my previous e-mail. > I just linked it, and it was linked in the draft policy. The fact that they published it elsewhere under a different license just means that it is effectively dual-licensed. It doesn't diminish any rights conferred under the GPL. -- Rich
