On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>
> So now the copy of the GPL v2 isn't good enough for the GPLv1.1 code?
> Maybe that code said 'or later' in the license and hence someone added
> it to a GPL v2 project since that sounds perfectly OK.
Where did that GPLv1.1 nonsense come from?
There is no GPLv1.1 code in the tree. By the time I selected the GPL for
the kernel license, the GPLv1.1 had long since been discontinued. The
kernel was *never* GPLv1.1-only compatible. That's just total nonsense.
There was indeed a kernel license before the GPLv2, but it wasn't the GPL
at all, it was my own made-up thing. Appended here, for those who are too
lazy to actually look up and check the original Linux-0.01 announcement.
Linus
---
This kernel is (C) 1991 Linus Torvalds, but all or part of it may be
redistributed provided you do the following:
- Full source must be available (and free), if not with the
distribution then at least on asking for it.
- Copyright notices must be intact. (In fact, if you distribute
only parts of it you may have to add copyrights, as there aren't
(C)'s in all files.) Small partial excerpts may be copied
without bothering with copyrights.
- You may not distibute this for a fee, not even "handling"
costs.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
