Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751432AbWIXH4g (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Sep 2006 03:56:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751405AbWIXH4g (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Sep 2006 03:56:36 -0400 Received: from emailer.gwdg.de ([134.76.10.24]:27595 "EHLO emailer.gwdg.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751362AbWIXH4f (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Sep 2006 03:56:35 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:53:35 +0200 (MEST) From: Jan Engelhardt To: Petr Baudis cc: Linus Torvalds , David Schwartz , linux-kernel , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: The GPL: No shelter for the Linux kernel? In-Reply-To: <20060923181406.GC11916@pasky.or.cz> Message-ID: References: <20060923181406.GC11916@pasky.or.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Report: Content analysis: 0.0 points, 6.0 required _SUMMARY_ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1915 Lines: 43 >> 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. >> > > Actually, this didn't catch on very well anyway, I guess because most >people just know it's GPLv2 and don't even bother to peek at COPYING, we >are a bit sloppy about copyright notices and most of them don't mention >licence at all (if there are any in the file at all), and adding >explicit copyright notices to mails isn't too popular either. Would every file that does not contain an explicit license (this excludes MODULE_LICENSE) falls under COPYING? > $ git grep 'discretion' > COPYING: at the discretion of Linus. > git-annotate.perl:# at the discretion of Linus Torvalds. > git-relink.perl:# Later versions of the GPL at the discretion of Linus Torvalds > git-request-pull.sh:# at the discretion of Linus Torvalds. > >and I've found no patches with such special assignment. Jan Engelhardt -- - 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/