[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <r6lkek1u3z.fsf@inf-skye.phy.cam.ac.uk>
Date: 16 Jun 2007 04:00:32 +0100
From: Sanjoy Mahajan <sanjoy@...o.cam.ac.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Carlo Wood <carlo@...noe.com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@....edu>,
Sean <seanlkml@...patico.ca>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>, david@...g.hm,
Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@...one.net.tr>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
>> "version 2 or higher"
> That phrase exists outside the license
That's true. But sec. 9 of the GPLv2 says:
If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you
may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
So, by making the COPYING contain the v2 text, is the author
specifying a particular version? If yes, then the sec. 9 provision
would be meaningless, since there would be no way to not specify a
version number.
My understanding is that courts would presume that a license term has
a meaning, if it has a plausible reading. And there such a reading:
that to specify a version, there needs to be (e.g. in the source
files) a statement like, "This file [or work] is licensed under the
GNU GPLv2."
Corrections, flames, etc. are welcome.
-Sanjoy
-
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