Re: [gNewSense-users] KFV licence issue

[crap0101]

        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
        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.
        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
        
hi! infact, this is a confused situation. In a past mail i refeer what
FSF wrote me about question on kernel's licence. I know "assuming"
something is not the better choice, mostly in legal affair, and the only
good thing to do is declare everytime the licence. Unfortunatly this is
not the case. You talk about compatible work: well, many files has been
released with "GPL V2 or loader", so we can "assume" the next developer
can put it out with GPL v3 licence...but, in this case, is not a
violation of the "main" kernel's licence? well, this is (for me) an
other contradiction... probably the only solution is the kernel "at all"
change licence to GPL v3 but... :-(