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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:34:08 -0700
From:	"jdow" <jdow@...thlink.net>
To:	"linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

From: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...l.org>

> Exactly. The GPLv3 can _only_ take over a GPLv2 project if the "or later" 
> exists.
> 
> It should also be pointed out that even a "GPLv2 or later" project can be 
> forked two different ways: you can turn it into a "GPLv3" (with perhaps a 
> "or later" added too) project, but you can _equally_ turn it into a "GPLv2 
> only" project.
> 
> In other words, even if the license says "GPLv2 or later", the GPLv3 isn't 
> actually "stronger". The original author dual-licensed it, and expressly 
> told you that he's ok with any GPL version greater than or equal to 2.

And if it is dual licensed and the user gets to pick the license what
does it mean to have GPLv3 as part of an OR clause? Those who would use
or reuse the code can ignore the GPLv3 part and go forward as GPLv2.
The intent of "GPLv2 or later" might have been "latest GPL version".
But that is not what the words rather explicitly declare.

{^_-}    Joanne
-
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/