[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171108171938.7df66c65@alans-desktop>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 17:19:38 +0000
From: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Fontana <fontana@...rpeleven.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license
identifier to files with no license
> By default all files without license information are under the default
> license of the kernel, which is GPL version 2.
Which is factually incorrect.
They are under a licence that is at least as permissive as GPL v2.
However they may be under a more permissive licence and as you are not
the rightsholder you don't have the right to relicence them mroe
restrictvely.
For example
I find a reference piece of code whose author says it is 'too trivial to
copyright'. I (not the author0 place that code in the kernel. The licence
on that code is still 'too trivial to copyright' (by estoppel). That's
GPL 2 compliant but it is *NOT* GPL.
As anyone can contribute third party code that is GPL compliant
legitimately you can't assume any unmarked code is GPL, merely 'at least
GPL'.
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists