Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751363AbWIWSAa (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Sep 2006 14:00:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751384AbWIWSAa (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Sep 2006 14:00:30 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:46266 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751363AbWIWSAa (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Sep 2006 14:00:30 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:00:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Jan Engelhardt cc: David Schwartz , linux-kernel Subject: RE: The GPL: No shelter for the Linux kernel? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2629 Lines: 56 On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > Now that you raise it: I think developers can already have done that > if they wish - properly name author and conditions who may possibly > change the license to what. Not that I have seen such code yet, but you > never know. Side note: in "git", we kind of discussed this. And because the project was started when the whole GPL version discussion was already in bloom, the git project has a note at top of the COPYING file that says: Note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as this project is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. HOWEVER, in order to allow a migration to GPLv3 if that seems like a good idea, I also ask that people involved with the project make their preferences known. In particular, if you trust me to make that decision, you might note so in your copyright message, ie something like This file is licensed under the GPL v2, or a later version at the discretion of Linus. might avoid issues. But we can also just decide to synchronize and contact all copyright holders on record if/when the occasion arises. but note how it's still at the discretion of the actual developers (ie when you add a file, you can either not specify any extensions, in which case it's "GPLv2 only", or you can specify "GPLv2 or any later", or you can specify the "GPLv2 or any later at the discretion of Linus Torvalds". The silly thing, of course, is that I'm not even the maintainer any more, and that Junio has done a kick-ass job of maintaining the thing, and is definitely the main author by now. So the whole "discretion of Linus" is a bit insane. [ Although exactly _because_ Junio has been such a great maintainer, I'd bow down to whatever decision he does, so my "discretion" would be to let him decide, if he wanted to. At some point, you have to trust some people, and just let go - if they do more than you do, they damn well have more rights than you do too. "Maintainership has its privileges" ] Anyway, I suspect the git language was a mistake. We should just have done what the kernel did - make the version number be clear and fixed, so that people don't even have to worry about exactly what conditions might cause a relicensing to happen. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/