Dave Walker wrote: > Rob Beard wrote: > >> Chris Rowson wrote: >> >>> Interesting little story found on /. >>> >>> http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/07/20/1643251/Microsoft-Releases-Linux-Device-Drivers-As-GPL >>> >>> Chris >>> >> Anyone known the URL for the weather in Hell on the Met Office web site? :-) >> >> Still, sounds good that they are releasing something under the GPL, >> funny how they didn't release it under GPL 3. >> >> Rob >> >> >> > > Hi Rob: > > Well part of the standard clause of GPLv2 states: > > "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it > under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the > Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your > option) any later version." [0] > > IANAL, but to me that states that anything released under GPLv2 is > automatically compatible with GPLv3, and any later license if it suits me. > > [0] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt > > That's what I thought. So surely GPL v3 modules could be used in the Linux kernel then?
Or is it because this code is going to be part of the kernel (even so I presume as a module) that it can't be released under the GPL v3? Rob -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
