Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 16:14 +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote: >> David Weinehall wrote: >> > OK, I'll instead quote what Linus wrote in the link I posted: >> >> > The "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later >> > version" language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never >> > been - part of the actual License itself. It's part of the >> >> As far as I know Linus is in the wrong there. Section 9 of GPL-2 allows >> using any license version if the program does not explicitly specify >> one, and that would have applied to old Linux versions that only >> included a "COPYING" file containing GPL-2, with no text for explicit >> version choice in the files. The link from Jacub Wilk already pointed to >> a post from Alan Cox explaining this. I don't see why you would post >> your link again in full quote after that without explaining why you >> still thought Linus wasn't wrong. > > Agreed, please read Alan Cox reply to Linus, Here is the link again: > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/30/100 (That reply was posted _after_ Linus > comment you just quoted) What Alan wrote was in support of the notion that it's a good idea to be explicit about one's copyright, because leaving it open to interpretation invites Lawyers (of both the properly qualified and barrack-room varieties) to aggressively misinterpret one's wishes. I'd suggest consulting an actual lawyer before embarking on a course that relies on the misinterpretation of a copyright holder's explicitly stated wishes in order to enable a hostle and provocative fork. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] http://www.hands.com/ |-| HANDS.COM Ltd. http://www.uk.debian.org/ |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND
Attachment:
pgpsyRZMHXOXv.pgp
Description: PGP signature