On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:52:27 -0400
"Dmitry Torokhov" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Alan Cox <[email protected]> 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.
> >
>
> Using this logic one can say that Linux kernel is BSD or even public
> domain and COPYING is there just for kicks.
Not really because
1. The file is called COPYING which rather suggests its purpose
2. There is a note at the top of it
3. Lots of the code contains GPL headers
Any sane Judge is going to come to the conclusion that this was the
intended licence of the code. The fact people have said so also settles
the matter pretty much.
One of the big differences between law (at least UK/US law) and code is
that the legal process seeks in part to figure out the intention of a
licence or contract. Civil law is a dispute resolution process. Not a
very good one, not a very cheap one, but as the previous system involved
sending large blokes around to the opponents HQ with swords and axes it
was found to have distinct benefit.
Alan
-
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]
