David Weinehall wrote: > OK, I'll instead quote what Linus wrote in the link I posted:
> The "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later > version" language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never > been - part of the actual License itself. It's part of the As far as I know Linus is in the wrong there. Section 9 of GPL-2 allows using any license version if the program does not explicitly specify one, and that would have applied to old Linux versions that only included a "COPYING" file containing GPL-2, with no text for explicit version choice in the files. The link from Jacub Wilk already pointed to a post from Alan Cox explaining this. I don't see why you would post your link again in full quote after that without explaining why you still thought Linus wasn't wrong. > So, that's Linus's stand on whether or not a GPLv3 kernel is feasible. > I hope this totally pointless thread can die now. A GPLv3 only Debian > distribution is, in my opinion, about as useful as lobotomy performed > with a bazooka. Even if some Linux versions are deemed GPLv3-compatible they're probably too old for any realistic use now, so in that sense it doesn't matter. Similar licensing issues apply to other projects too though, so you should try to avoid spreading incorrect information. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1373030097.18948.56.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid
