[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070615133823.GC11830@alinoe.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:38:23 +0200
From: Carlo Wood <carlo@...noe.com>
To: Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@....de>
Cc: Paulo Marques <pmarques@...popie.com>,
Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 10:14:44AM +0200, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> Linus isn't in the positition to
> change that unless he does a substantial change to the file, and also adds
> a comment that this file is now GPLv2 only.
Which would only have effect on future additions, not the current
content of the file - of course.
Now - what if someone would write a patch for such a file (that was
'any version' before and then had a header added saying 'just version 2')
under the license 'version 2 or later'? This patch could be transformed
to 'just 2', and then applied to said source file - but, it could also
be added to the previous version of that file (without the new header)
as 'version 2 or later'. Hence, the file can still be constructed at
any moment (provided the header is removed) as license 'version 2 or
later', UNLESS someone adds a *crucial* patch (that cannot be removed
as well, along with the header) that is explicitely made version 2
ONLY by its author.
Bottom line - adding a header to those files with "version 2 only"
by Linus is pointless.
--
Carlo Wood <carlo@...noe.com>
-
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