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

[Glauber de Oliveira Costa]

> > And the basics are: "people who write the code decide the license to
> > give it". And that's just it.
>
> Yo, then fucking do it! Write it in the files you contribute! If you don't,
> you haven't! You decide, not Linus Torvalds. Make it clear you have
> decided.
>
> > And people who write kernel code are perfectly aware that the kernel
> > license is GPL v2 only, and always has been (except for the initial
> > linus license).
>
> Wrong.
>
> > Putting a license statement in _every_ file in the kernel tree would
> > just be idiotic when there is such a clear COPYING file in the root of
> > the kernel tree.
>
> It's a personal comment from Linus, and not clear in any way. Do it the way
> the file COPYING itself suggests. It's not "idiotic", it's the most obvious
> way to do it.

If it wasn't clear someday, it seems to be utterly clear now, after
all this discussion (that is not the first related, AFAIK). Why is the
"spirit" so important for the GPLv{2,3} understanding, and not
important at all here? The intention that the kernel is gplv2 is very
clearly stated.

--
Glauber de Oliveira Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net

"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/