From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
To: "Simon Arlott" <simon@fire.lp0.eu>, <jengelh@computergmbh.de>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:42:35 -0700
Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKEELKEHAC.davids@webmaster.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706101307060.8723@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Importance: Normal
Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1286
Lines: 36


> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1915720,00.asp
> has the answer. Quoting Linus:
>
> "If you want to license a program under any later version of the
> GPL, you have
> to state so explicitly. Linux never did."
>
> Hence, unless there's a "GPL 2 or later", all the "unspecified GPL" files
> are GPL2 only.

The GPL states the default position:

"If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may
choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."

Leaving the question of whether Linus's comment at the top of the license
changes the default:

"Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is
concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or
v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated."

So we have dueling defaults. The GPL says the default is any version. Linus'
statement at the top of the GPL says the default is v2 only. It's not clear,
at least to me, that there is any clear reason why one should win out over
the other.

DS


-
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/