Alan Cox wrote:
But COPYING *is* the entire text and starts with: "
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991"
so there is no confusion about the version.
The version of the COPYING file (and the licence document), not of the
licence on the code.
Wrong.
Why do you say "Wrong"? Have you contributed some code to the kernel
thinking that the kernel was "v2 or later", only to find out later that
it wasn't?
A fair bit of the kernel is probably v2 or later but not all of it and
that shouldn't really matter as regards the kernel anyway, the GPLv2 only
bits (if v2 only is a valid status) anchor it.
So we are violently agreeing, then?
This sub-thread started by me showing that:
$ find -name "*.c" | xargs grep "any later version" | wc -l
3138
$ find -name "*.c" | wc -l
9482
This is a somewhat crude measure but it shows that only about 30% of the
kernel is "v2 or later" and those pieces could be used on some other "v2
or later" project (including v3). But the kernel as a whole is v2 and my
point was that the claim that there are just a few "v2 only" files was
bogus.
--
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error."
Weisert
-
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]
