Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756521AbXFOO6h (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:58:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753771AbXFOO62 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:58:28 -0400 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.181]:33537 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753235AbXFOO61 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:58:27 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=gKekOxGl3mvXDZQD2dghsqyhMCCBGbM8mjJCBB2LYYV0mwh1n+OoBPuJFtyrq6PbT6ofc/SOSeWyOkyaoygbHPUh/p405VjscLNRA/z1OrCEuu/xQEmAWAFGsW2DmOIWUt59O5WRJefk1XITgbwFZ+cCYtuoPQ/RY4ayW1NUzqc= Message-ID: <9a8748490706150758s51f787ccy4acbdec9fa356b8a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:58:27 +0200 From: "Jesper Juhl" To: "Dmitry Torokhov" Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Cc: "Alan Cox" , "Paulo Marques" , "Bernd Paysan" , "Al Viro" , "Krzysztof Halasa" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <200706151014.45383.bernd.paysan@gmx.de> <46727CCF.9030905@grupopie.com> <200706151403.57178.bernd.paysan@gmx.de> <4672A231.9000800@grupopie.com> <20070615154522.2a161884@the-village.bc.nu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1585 Lines: 34 On 15/06/07, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On 6/15/07, Alan Cox wrote: > > > But COPYING *is* the entire text and starts with: " > > > GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE > > > Version 2, June 1991" > > > > > > so there is no confusion about the version. > > > > The version of the COPYING file (and the licence document), not of the > > licence on the code. > > > > Using this logic one can say that Linux kernel is BSD or even public > domain and COPYING is there just for kicks. > No. Only the original author can specify the license. If no license at all is specified only the author has any rights to the work, other people don't have any right to distribute, modify or whatever. So if the COPYING file doesn't specify the license for work without a license clause directly in the file, then only the author has any rights, you can't just then move in and assign an arbitrary license. But I think you would find it very hard to argue that files contributed to the Linux kernel without an explicit license notice does not fall under the terms set forth in the COPYING document. -- Jesper Juhl Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.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/