| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:42:35 -0700 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com> To: "Simon Arlott" <simon@...e.lp0.eu>, <jengelh@...putergmbh.de> Cc: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: RE: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1915720,00.asp > has the answer. Quoting Linus: > > "If you want to license a program under any later version of the > GPL, you have > to state so explicitly. Linux never did." > > Hence, unless there's a "GPL 2 or later", all the "unspecified GPL" files > are GPL2 only. The GPL states the default position: "If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation." Leaving the question of whether Linus's comment at the top of the license changes the default: "Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated." So we have dueling defaults. The GPL says the default is any version. Linus' statement at the top of the GPL says the default is v2 only. It's not clear, at least to me, that there is any clear reason why one should win out over the other. 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