linux-kernel - Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

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.4.61.0609290757400.30682@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date:	Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:08:58 +0200 (MEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
cc:	Jörn Engel <joern@...nheim.fh-wedel.de>,
	Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Chase Venters <chase.venters@...entec.com>,
	Sergey Panov <sipan@...an.org>,
	Patrick McFarland <diablod3@...il.com>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...eleye.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

>
>And the GPLv2 and GPLv3 really _are_ mutually incompatible. There is 
>absolutely nothing in the GPLv2 that is inherently compatible with the 
>GPLv3, and the _only_ way you can mix code is if you explicitly 
>dual-license it.
>
>Ie, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are compatible only the same way GPLv2 is compatible 
>with a commercial proprietary license: they are compatible only if you 
>release the code under a dual license. 
>
>The whole "or later" phrase is legally _no_ different at all from a dual 
>licensing (it's just more open-ended, and you don't know what the "or 
>later" will be, so you're basically saying that you trust the FSF 
>implicitly).

So what would happen if I add an essential GPL2-only file to a "GPL2
or later" project? Let's recall, a proprietary program that
combines/derives with GPL code makes the final binary GPL (and hence
the source, etc. and whatnot, don't stretch it). Question: The Linux
kernel does have GPL2 and GPL2+later combined, what does this make
the final binary?

(Maybe you implicitly answered it by this already, please indicate): 
>Exactly. The GPLv3 can _only_ take over a GPLv2 project if the "or later" 
>exists.
>From that I'd say it remains GPL2 only.


Thanks for the clarification (though I know we're all IANALs.)

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/