Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

[Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1635 bytes --]

On Thursday 14 June 2007 19:20, Paulo Marques wrote:
> Watching the output of the first grep without "wc -l" shows that,
> although it is not 100% accurate, it is still ok just to get a rough
> estimate.
>
> So yes, ~6300 files are definitely more than a couple ;)

Most of them don't say anything, so they are "any GPL" by the author. When 
do you people accept that Linus can't change the GPL, he can only add 
comments of what he thinks is the case! His interpretation of the GPLv2 
might be that not saying anything about the version means "v2 only", but if 
he does so, he's simply wrong. He was wrong in the module case, as well, 
and dropped this comment a while ago. He might drop this comment in future, 
as well. In fact, anybody can drop this comment, as it's just a comment.

The kernel *as a whole* is clearly under GPLv2 only from Linus' comment, 
which is in fact true, since the common subset of GPL versions from all 
authors is indeed GPLv2 (by virtue of some files from Al Viro, and maybe 
some other explicit GPL v2 files). The author must specify the version 
himself, there simply is no other way. If you don't specify any, it's "any 
version", because I can license all patches straight from the authors. The 
way the GPLv2 allows you to explicitely specify "any version" is by not 
saying anything about the version at all. Linus isn't in the positition to 
change that unless he does a substantial change to the file, and also adds 
a comment that this file is now GPLv2 only.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]