On 18/06/07, Paul Mundt <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 02:33:02AM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> Just to make things clear in the light of recent discussions.
> Stuff I contribute to the Linux kernel are licensed under the terms of the
> GPL version 2.
>
> +D: All contributions are licensed under the terms of the GPL version 2.
I suspect this is the default for the vast majority of kernel developers.
Perhaps it's only worth special casing those that have an interest in
GPLv3, as the numbers are bound to be far lower -- if this sort of thing
is judged to be a good idea, that is (It's rather interesting to note
that the vast majority of GPLv3 advocates don't even have a single
changeset in the kernel, yet still feel that their input on kernel
licensing is somehow relevant or valid).
Explicitly marking the GPLv3 supporters would probably result in the
smaller set, but I just felt that it was important to make my own
position absolutely clear.
--
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
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]