On Jun 21, 2007, jimmy bahuleyan <[email protected]> wrote:
> There, that right there, wouldn't it again require a 'nod' from all
> those who have contributed to the kernel (because at the time they did,
> the license was GPLv2 without any additions)?
That's my understanding, yes, but IANAL.
Similarly, any GPLv2 and GPLv3 projects that wish to cooperate with
each other could introduce mutual additional permissions in the way I
suggested, even if neither GPLv2 nor GPLv3 themselves make such
provisions. This is a decision that copyright holders can make, in
very much the same way that they can make their decisions as to
permitting relicensing under newer versions of the GPL, or even older
versions of the GPL.
BTW, I should probably have made clear that, as usual, I was speaking
my own mind, not speaking on behalf of FSFLA or Red Hat, with whom I'm
associated, and certainly not on behalf of FSF, with whom I'm not
associated. Just in case this wasn't clear yet ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
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]
