[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4672A65E.6010607@grupopie.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:46:54 +0100
From: Paulo Marques <pmarques@...popie.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@....de>,
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
Alan Cox wrote:
>> But COPYING *is* the entire text and starts with: "
>> GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
>> Version 2, June 1991"
>>
>> so there is no confusion about the version.
>
> The version of the COPYING file (and the licence document), not of the
> licence on the code.
>
>>> Wrong.
>> Why do you say "Wrong"? Have you contributed some code to the kernel
>> thinking that the kernel was "v2 or later", only to find out later that
>> it wasn't?
>
> A fair bit of the kernel is probably v2 or later but not all of it and
> that shouldn't really matter as regards the kernel anyway, the GPLv2 only
> bits (if v2 only is a valid status) anchor it.
So we are violently agreeing, then?
This sub-thread started by me showing that:
> $ find -name "*.c" | xargs grep "any later version" | wc -l
> 3138
> $ find -name "*.c" | wc -l
> 9482
This is a somewhat crude measure but it shows that only about 30% of the
kernel is "v2 or later" and those pieces could be used on some other "v2
or later" project (including v3). But the kernel as a whole is v2 and my
point was that the claim that there are just a few "v2 only" files was
bogus.
--
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error."
Weisert
-
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