On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mer, 2006-01-25 at 17:39 -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the
> > particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you want to
> > license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you have to state
> > so explicitly. Linux never did.
>
> Not correct. See section 9.
Sorry, I think you're wrong.
We've _always_ said which license explicitly. It's in the COPYING file.
Even before the clarification, the COPYING file has always said
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
...
at the very top.
How can you say that we didn't specify a version?
If you distribute a program, and you just say "I license this under the
GPL", THEN you don't specify a verion.
But if you distribute a program, and the ONLY license that is associated
with it is a specific version of a license file, then that's what you
have, UNLESS SOMETHING SAYS OTHERWISE.
This is basic copyright law, btw, and has nothing to do with the GPL per
se. If you don't have a license, you don't have any copyright AT ALL.
Linux kernel files don't say "This is licensed under the GPL". Not mine,
at least. I don't see the point, and I never have. There's a COPYING file
that specifies what the license is, and that COPYING file very much
specifies a very _specific_ version of the GPL. Always has.
Linus
-
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]
