Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965032AbWI1PVO (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:21:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965038AbWI1PVO (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:21:14 -0400 Received: from wohnheim.fh-wedel.de ([213.39.233.138]:42166 "EHLO wohnheim.fh-wedel.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965032AbWI1PVN (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:21:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:20:20 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Lennart Sorensen , Chase Venters , Sergey Panov , Patrick McFarland , Theodore Tso , Alan Cox , Jan Engelhardt , James Bottomley , linux-kernel Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement Message-ID: <20060928152020.GC21814@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> References: <1158941750.3445.31.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <1159415242.13562.12.camel@sipan.sipan.org> <200609272339.28337.chase.venters@clientec.com> <20060928135510.GR13641@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <20060928141932.GA707@DervishD> <20060928144028.GA21814@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1648 Lines: 41 On Thu, 28 September 2006 08:04:13 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > No. I _really_ want to clarify this, because so many people get it wrong. > Really. > > The "GPLv2 only" wording is really just a clarification. You don't need it > for the project to be "GPLv2 only". > > If a project says: "This code is licensed under this copyright license" > and then goes on to quote the GPLv2, then IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE > GPLv3! > > Or if you just say "I license my code under the GPLv2", IT IS NOT > COMPATIBLE WITH THE GPLv3. And this is an area where I slightly disagree with you. While I would hope that you were right, I can easily imagine a judge ruling that "v2 or later" in the preamble means that the project just signed a blank license of the FSF's discretion. I can just as easily imagine a judge ruling that "simply copying the GPL license verbatim and not removing the 'or later'" clause is does not sufficiently demonstrate the authors intent to dual-license the code. And the likelihood of either ruling will depend on many things, but will never reach 0 or 1. It is a gray area where your legal advice is just as bad as mine and your "GPLv2 only" clarification may in fact be a fork I was talking about. We just don't know until this has been tested in court, which hopefully never happens. J?rn -- Joern's library part 11: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html - 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/