Re: [gNewSense-users] KFV licence issue

[Kevin Dean]

Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but if a kernel contributor submitted a
patch/driver or whatever that said "Under GPL" and is in turn
distributed in the kernel.org source tree, wouldn't the distribution
be choosing GPLv2 like the rest of the kernel? It would still be
meeting the author's terms (GPL), the terms of the GPL (you may choose
any version) with the additional clarification made by being
distributed in a v2+v2-compatible work? I mean, they wouldn't have
distributed it under v3 since it's not compatible with the rest of the
codebase. Additionally, since GNU GPLv2 was written in June 1991, and
Linux licensed under "the GPL" in December of 1991 we can assume it
was never GPLv1.


On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Chris Andrew <address@hidden> wrote:
> Michael,
>
>  Good points.  I'm not sure I like the idea of _assuming_ anything,
>  though.  If potential issues exist with a part of the kernel, then
>  let's flag it up and resolve it.  The possibility does exist that
>  something may have been overlooked.  This isn't meant to offend any of
>  the kernel contributors, it's just a way of making sure free software
>  stays free.
>
>  Hope that makes sense.
>
>  Thanks,
>
>  Chris.
>
>
>
>  On 12/03/2008, Michael Fötsch <address@hidden> wrote:
>  > Hi,
>  >
>  >   > What should we do in those cases, the ones it says "under GNU GPL"(not
>  >   > version) and the others that don't have neither copyright or licence.
>  >
>  >  1)
>  >  Since GPL 1, there's been this passage in the license:
>  >
>  >  "If the Program does not specify a version number of
>  >  the license, you may choose any version ever published by the Free 
> Software
>  >  Foundation."
>  >
>  >  This means, if the developer who placed the software under the GPL read
>  >  and understood the license (which I think is fair to assume), he's okay
>  >  with any license.
>  >
>  >  Whatever version it ends up to be, it's fine, because all versions of
>  >  the GPL are free.
>  >
>  >  2)
>  >  If a file does not specify a license, I think it's fair to assume that
>  >  it's under the same license as the package that it's part of. (I think
>  >  this question came up before, but I can't find the thread right now.)
>  >
>  >
>  >  Kind Regards,
>  >  M.F.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >  _______________________________________________
>  >  gNewSense-users mailing list
>  >  address@hidden
>  >  http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
>  >
>
>
>  --
>  Reasons why you may want to try GNU/Linux:
>
>  http://www.getgnulinux.org/
>
>  A great GNU/Linux distro:
>
>  http://wiki.gnewsense.org/
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  gNewSense-users mailing list
>  address@hidden
>  http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
>