Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On 2006.09.28 17:20:20 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Thu, 28 September 2006 08:04:13 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > No. I _really_ want to clarify this, because so many people get it wrong. 
> > Really.
> > 
> > The "GPLv2 only" wording is really just a clarification. You don't need it 
> > for the project to be "GPLv2 only".
> > 
> > If a project says: "This code is licensed under this copyright license" 
> > and then goes on to quote the GPLv2, then IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE 
> > GPLv3!
> > 
> > Or if you just say "I license my code under the GPLv2", IT IS NOT 
> And this is an area where I slightly disagree with you.  While I would
> hope that you were right, I can easily imagine a judge ruling that "v2
> or later" in the preamble means that the project just signed a blank
> license of the FSF's discretion.

The preamble does not say "v2 or later", that's only in "How To" section
which is not part of the terms and conditions. But section 9 is even
worse than "v2 or later". Linus' second exmaple is fine, it mentions v2
and therefore it actually is v2 only. But the first one means _any_ GPL
version, even older versions, as it does not mention any version and
section 9 says "If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free
Software Foundation." ouch!


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[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]
  Powered by Linux