On Jan 27, 2006, at 09:00, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
really? if it was dual licensed (that's what I meant, perhaps the
"or" should be an "and"? ;-), v2 in the kernel and v3 (or any later
version, etc.), if the code is used outside of the kernel, it would
"fall back to" v3+ as soon as it's taken out of the kernel and used
in something else.
You cannot say "This code is GPLv2 only in the context of the
kernel". You may say "This code is licensed under GPLv2 or GPLv3".
The reasoning behind this is as follows: If I take a kernel tree,
and apply a large patch that removes all of the code except for your
driver, the result is perfectly legal to distribute under GPLv2
(because I took a combined GPLv2 source, applied any modification I
felt like (such as deleting everything except one of the drivers),
and therefore get a GPLv2 source.
One thing I am not sure about: If you have a kernel which contains
code licensed under GPLv2 only and code licensed under GPLv3 only,
would it be redistributable at all? If so, under what conditions/
terms? IANAL, so take the following with a couple pounds of salt;
since GPLv2 says something like "You cannot add any additional
restrictions", and GPLv3 adds additional restrictions, it might be
true that the composite is not legally redistributable even though
the two individual parts are, no?
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
--
They _will_ find opposing experts to say it isn't, if you push hard
enough the wrong way. Idiots with a PhD aren't hard to buy.
-- Rob Landley
-
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]
