linux-kernel - Re: [patch V4 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

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: <20171207105101.GA8549@silk.coyote.org>
Date:   Thu, 7 Dec 2017 11:51:01 +0100
From:   Jonas Oberg <jonas@...e.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
        Rob Herring <rob.herring@...aro.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        Charlemagne Lasse <charlemagnelasse@...il.com>,
        Carmen Bianca Bakker <carmenbianca@...e.org>
Subject: Re: [patch V4 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:19:29PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Add the full text of the GPL 2.0 license to the LICENSES directory.  It was
> copied directly from the COPYING file in the kernel source tree as it
> differs from the public available version of the license in various places
> including the FSF.
> 
> Philippe did some research on the GPL2.0 history:
> 
>   There is NO trustworthy version of an official GPL 2.0 text: the FSF
>   official texts are all fubar (if only in small and subtle ways). The FSF
>   texts should be authoritative, but then which one? They published more
>   GPL 2.0 versions than most. So we would be hard pressed to blame SPDX or
>   the OSI for having their own minor variant.
> 
>   Then in digging further, I found the ONE true original GPL with a file
>   time stamp on June 2 1991, 01:50 (AM?, PM? unknown time zone?)  ! in an
>   old GCC archive.
> 
>   For the posterity and everyone's enjoyment I have built a git history
>   of GPL 2.0 Mark1 to Mark6
> 
>   See https://github.com/pombredanne/gpl-history/commits/master/COPYING
> 
>   I also added a shorter history of the Linux COPYING text. The first
>   version in Linus's git tree is based on the very fine and well tuned GPL
>   2 Mark4, the first fully Y2K compliant version of the GPL 2, as you can
>   see from the diffs with the former Mark3: that was dangerously stuck in
>   the last century.
> 
>   The current version in is based on a rare GPL 2.0 Mark5.1 aka "Franklin
>   St", that I do not have in my history yet and spells "Franklin St."
>   rather than "Franklin Street."  Therefore there is likely another GPL 2.0
>   version between Mark4 and Mark5 that I have yet to find and may not have
>   been caught by the archive.org spiders. Here help and patches welcomed:
>   this is likely an important missing link.
> 
>   Further information about this archaelogical research;
>   
>   http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAOFm3uEzRMf261+O-Nm+9HDoEn9RbFjH=5J9i1C2GgMUg2G4LA@mail.gmail.com
> 
> Add the required tags for reference and tooling.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>

Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberg <jonas@...e.org>

-- 
Jonas Öberg
Executive Director

FSFE e.V. - keeping the power of technology in your hands. Your
support enables our work, please join us today http://fsfe.org/join