From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758545AbXFSLbe (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 07:31:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756470AbXFSLb0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 07:31:26 -0400 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.178]:52844 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756075AbXFSLbZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 07:31:25 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=hqzouYH/ChaKT3zaIBlVV2EjVBNp2wMQITiwk3WVkkQmBcm1KgHn9sI08W9zRHMD9ZT5loIRHLoHbk/+uYXNUCYWPrcVuCJR+5NeCAw2A4w8+Lwut+9OqvqgtLjuGQlTBGSdEUJfovo7Az2c+0OZPn0OIweZA+RXCL2gu3Qkzi8= Message-ID: <9a8748490706190431p3dc4aaa5o2791f1e49084bdee@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:31:24 +0200 From: "Jesper Juhl" To: "Paul Mundt" , "Jesper Juhl" , "Linus Torvalds" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , trivial@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] clarify the GPL version of contributions by Jesper Juhl in CREDITS In-Reply-To: <20070618015801.GA30892@linux-sh.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200706180233.02955.jesper.juhl@gmail.com> <20070618015801.GA30892@linux-sh.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 18/06/07, Paul Mundt wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 02:33:02AM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > Just to make things clear in the light of recent discussions. > > Stuff I contribute to the Linux kernel are licensed under the terms of the > > GPL version 2. > > > > +D: All contributions are licensed under the terms of the GPL version 2. > > I suspect this is the default for the vast majority of kernel developers. > Perhaps it's only worth special casing those that have an interest in > GPLv3, as the numbers are bound to be far lower -- if this sort of thing > is judged to be a good idea, that is (It's rather interesting to note > that the vast majority of GPLv3 advocates don't even have a single > changeset in the kernel, yet still feel that their input on kernel > licensing is somehow relevant or valid). > Explicitly marking the GPLv3 supporters would probably result in the smaller set, but I just felt that it was important to make my own position absolutely clear. -- 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