linux-kernel - Re: The GPL: No shelter for the Linux kernel?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0609240952240.28459@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date:	Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:53:35 +0200 (MEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To:	Petr Baudis <pasky@...e.cz>
cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	David Schwartz <davids@...master.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, git@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The GPL: No shelter for the Linux kernel?

>> Side note: in "git", we kind of discussed this. And because the project 
>> was started when the whole GPL version discussion was already in bloom, 
>> the git project has a note at top of the COPYING file that says:
>> 
>>  Note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as this project
>>  is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
>>  v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
>> 
>>  HOWEVER, in order to allow a migration to GPLv3 if that seems like
>>  a good idea, I also ask that people involved with the project make
>>  their preferences known. In particular, if you trust me to make that
>>  decision, you might note so in your copyright message, ie something
>>  like
>> 
>>         This file is licensed under the GPL v2, or a later version
>>         at the discretion of Linus.
>> 
>
>  Actually, this didn't catch on very well anyway, I guess because most
>people just know it's GPLv2 and don't even bother to peek at COPYING, we
>are a bit sloppy about copyright notices and most of them don't mention
>licence at all (if there are any in the file at all), and adding
>explicit copyright notices to mails isn't too popular either.

Would every file that does not contain an explicit license (this 
excludes MODULE_LICENSE) falls under COPYING?

>	$ git grep 'discretion'
>	COPYING:        at the discretion of Linus.
>	git-annotate.perl:# at the discretion of Linus Torvalds.
>	git-relink.perl:# Later versions of the GPL at the discretion of Linus Torvalds
>	git-request-pull.sh:# at the discretion of Linus Torvalds.
>
>and I've found no patches with such special assignment.


Jan Engelhardt
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/