On 22 Mar 2006, at 11:32, David Schwartz wrote:
I thought GPLv2 would be implicit. I'll add the short GPL stanza to
each of the offending source files.
It seems rather illogical to me to add a GPL stanza. The GPL adds new
rights and imposes requirements on you only if you could get those
rights no
other way. Since there is another way, the alternative license, the GPL
requirements would never kick in. Although, as far as I can tell, it
doesn't
change or harm anything.
Yes, that's the same logic I applied. I think it is redundant, but I
think it makes sense to add a sentence to the effect that the file is
GPL if you want it to be, just to avoid any fears or complaints, and to
show that we really aren't trying to do anything fishy. And IANAL so
I'll err on the side of caution and redundancy. :-)
-- Keir
-
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]
