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

[Paulo Marques]

Alan Cox wrote:
> > But COPYING *is* the entire text and starts with: "
> > 		    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> > 		       Version 2, June 1991"
> >
> > so there is no confusion about the version.
>
> The version of the COPYING file (and the licence document), not of the
> licence on the code.
>
> > > Wrong.
> > Why do you say "Wrong"? Have you contributed some code to the kernel 
> > thinking that the kernel was "v2 or later", only to find out later that 
> > it wasn't?
>
> A fair bit of the kernel is probably v2 or later but not all of it and
> that shouldn't really matter as regards the kernel anyway, the GPLv2 only
> bits (if v2 only is a valid status) anchor it.

So we are violently agreeing, then?

This sub-thread started by me showing that:

> $ find -name "*.c" | xargs grep "any later version" | wc -l
> 3138
> $ find -name "*.c" | wc -l
> 9482

This is a somewhat crude measure but it shows that only about 30% of the 
kernel is "v2 or later" and those pieces could be used on some other "v2 
or later" project (including v3). But the kernel as a whole is v2 and my 
point was that the claim that there are just a few "v2 only" files was 
bogus.

--
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com

"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error."
Weisert
-
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/