Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:46:54 +0100 | From | Paulo Marques <> | Subject | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| |
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. > >>> Wrong. >> Why do you say "Wrong"? Have you contributed some code to the kernel >> thinking that the kernel was "v2 or later", only to find out later that >> it wasn't? > > A fair bit of the kernel is probably v2 or later but not all of it and > that shouldn't really matter as regards the kernel anyway, the GPLv2 only > bits (if v2 only is a valid status) anchor it.
So we are violently agreeing, then?
This sub-thread started by me showing that:
> $ find -name "*.c" | xargs grep "any later version" | wc -l > 3138 > $ find -name "*.c" | wc -l > 9482
This is a somewhat crude measure but it shows that only about 30% of the kernel is "v2 or later" and those pieces could be used on some other "v2 or later" project (including v3). But the kernel as a whole is v2 and my point was that the claim that there are just a few "v2 only" files was bogus.
-- Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." Weisert - 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/
| |