On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 12:28:34PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > The GPL applies to "the Program" which in this case is the Linux kernel > > as a whole and it in fact does indicate a specific version. All code > > submitted and included in this program has has been submitted with the > > understanding that the work as a whole is specifically licensed as > > GPLv2. Some authors have granted additional rights, such as dual BSD/GPL > > or GPLv2 and later and explicitly added such a notice. > > Since the Linux kernel as a whole does not have a single author, it is > impossible to license it as a whole. Nobody has the authority to do that. > (The GPL is not a copyright assignment type license.) > > Fortunately, the GPL clears this up: > > "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the > Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the > original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to > these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. > You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to > this License." > > Linus cannot impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of > the rights granted. > > When you download a copy of the Linux kernel, you do not receive one license > because nobody could grant you one license. You receive a logically separate > license from each original licensor. You receive from Linus only a license > to his contributions. > > Note that you cannot take a GPLv2+ work and redistribute it as GPLv3 only. > You can license your contributions as GPLv3 only of course. However, each > recipient still receives a GPLv2+ license to the parts that were originally > licensed that way. The people you distribute the work from receive licenses > from the original licensors to those parts, and you have no right to modify > that license. (See GPL section 6, quoted above.)
You have a good point. It can be argued that contributions before 2.4.0-test8 were in fact GPLv2+, but anything after that point has clearly been contributed as GPLv2 only. So now we have a bunch of pre-2.4.0-test8 code that may possibly be v2+ and files that explicitly state v2+ in their boiler plate. However many of these files may have had additional contributions from other authors which (unless otherwise specified) were GPLv2-only. And because v2 and v3 are incompatible, all those files with v2-only contributions will become v2-only when version 3 is released. Of course it may be that all those copyright owners do not mind re-releasing their copyrighted code as v2+, but they will have to be contacted. Several maintainers did pay attention to such details. I once submitted a patch that among others touched reiserfs, and I promptly got a friendly email from Hans asking me to sign off any rights he needed to re-release the related code under a different license, so he made sure the combined work wouldn't end up GPLv2 only. Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
