linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clarify the GPL version of contributions by Jesper Juhl in CREDITS

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20070618015801.GA30892@linux-sh.org>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:58:01 +0900
From:	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
To:	Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	trivial@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clarify the GPL version of contributions by Jesper Juhl in CREDITS

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 02:33:02AM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> Just to make things clear in the light of recent discussions. 
> Stuff I contribute to the Linux kernel are licensed under the terms of the 
> GPL version 2.
> 
> +D: All contributions are licensed under the terms of the GPL version 2.

I suspect this is the default for the vast majority of kernel developers.
Perhaps it's only worth special casing those that have an interest in
GPLv3, as the numbers are bound to be far lower -- if this sort of thing
is judged to be a good idea, that is (It's rather interesting to note
that the vast majority of GPLv3 advocates don't even have a single
changeset in the kernel, yet still feel that their input on kernel
licensing is somehow relevant or valid).
-
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/