Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
I had to read this 5 times or so to understand what you are talking about. Simply put, Syke worded it a bit ambiguously and he actually meant "It doesn't matter where the copyright resides, the module must become GPL-licensed when they distribute a Linux-derived work, or else they violate the GPL." No need to make a fuss like that, this is not FUD. Also, there was no relicensing of others' code mentioned anywhere - the module is theirs.
Some people believe that their code will become automatically GPL licensed if they touch GPL software. I don't know how Syke meant it, but Microsoft and others have been running a FUD campaign about "viral" GPL relicensing your code for many years now.

If you violate the GPL, you have violated the GPL, that's it. Your code does not become GPL automatically. Even many OSS advocates sadly get this wrong.

Perhaps Syke meant it differently, but it's important to fight the "viral" FUD.