On Jun 10 2007 10:17, Simon Arlott wrote:
>On 10/06/07 09:37, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>> BTW,I found a really interesting blog entry about which code in Linux
>> Kernel is using which version of GPL :
>>
>> http://6thsenseless.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-much-linux-kernel-code-is-gpl-2.html
>>
>> You've got to take MODULE_LICENSE() into account. There is
>>
>> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL and additional rights");
>> MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL");
>> MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MIT/GPL");
>> MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MPL/GPL");
>
>Surely that doesn't work since the entire Linux kernel is (and can only be)
>released as GPLv2? Wouldn't anyone making changes to those files need to
>obtain a copy under the other licence and explicitly release it under both
>licenses in order to maintain that?
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1915720,00.asp
has the answer. Quoting Linus:
"If you want to license a program under any later version of the GPL, you have
to state so explicitly. Linux never did."
Hence, unless there's a "GPL 2 or later", all the "unspecified GPL" files
are GPL2 only.
Jan
--
-
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]
