| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKIEOLOLAB.davids@webmaster.com> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 00:18:58 -0700 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com> To: "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: RE: GPLv3 Position Statement > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:29:55 -0700 > "David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com> wrote: > > Unless I'm missing something, you *cannot* change the license > > from "v2 or > > later at your option" to "v3 or later". Both GPLv2 and GPLv3 explicitly > > prohibit modifying license notices. (Did the FSF goof big time? > > It's not too > > late to change the draft.) > The copyright holder is not constrained at all in how they license their > work. They can change the license to anything they want, including the > GPLv3 or anything else. Of course, earlier versions will still > be available > under the GPLv2. Right, but *you* cannot change the license. You cannot get a copy of a "GPLv2 or later" work and add some code and release the result as "GPLv3 or later". (Assuming you are not the copyright holder.) I believe the FSF intended to permit this. Otherwise, even if Linux had been "GPLv2 or later" all along, it could not adopt GPLv3 without permission from all copyright holders (or ever include any code that was "GPLv3 or later"). That hardly seems to have been the FSF's intent. (Or was it?!) DS - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists