Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757082AbXFOS2Q (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:28:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752257AbXFOS2E (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:28:04 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:44755 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753407AbXFOS2D (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:28:03 -0400 To: "Dmitry Torokhov" Cc: "Bernd Paysan" , "Paulo Marques" , "Al Viro" , "Krzysztof Halasa" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <200706151014.45383.bernd.paysan@gmx.de> <46727CCF.9030905@grupopie.com> <200706151403.57178.bernd.paysan@gmx.de> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:27:26 -0300 In-Reply-To: (Dmitry Torokhov's message of "Fri\, 15 Jun 2007 08\:52\:05 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux) 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: 2547 Lines: 58 On Jun 15, 2007, "Dmitry Torokhov" wrote: > On 6/15/07, Bernd Paysan wrote: >> On Friday 15 June 2007 13:49, Paulo Marques wrote: >> >> > No, it is not "any version". It is the license specified in COPYING and >> > nothing else. >> >> COPYING says in section 9 that there may be other versions, and if you as >> author don't specify the version, it's "any version". > Please read this sentence over and over until it sinks: I believe he was talking about the sentence just after the one you quoted: If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. Linux files don't all specify version 2, but Linus, Al Viro and other authors very clearly mean their contributions to be version 2 only, while others very clearly mean their contributions to be v2+. The moment anyone makes copyrightable changes to any such files, and offers them under GPLv2 only (if that's at all possible; I used to believe so, but I've read interesting, even if surprising, arguments indicating it might not be), the result of the modification is GPLv2 only. So there's no doubt that the whole of the kernel is meant to be under GPLv2 only, even if some individual authors may choose to make their contributions available under other licenses, and be willing to make such offers when they are legally entitled to do so. I don't quite understand what this fuss is all about. Even if a majority of the Linux authors had chosen GPLv2+, or GPLvany, if any single author makes a contribution under GPLv2 only, and that contribution is integrated, that's a veto for distributing the whole under any other license. This single contributor could dictate his choice upon others, as long as his contribution was present. IANAL, but I believe that's how it works. And this means Linux is under GPLv2, no matter how much of the code in it is available under any other versions of the GPL, or even different (but compatible) licenses. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} - 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/