[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Plan to release a gplv3 compliant debian-based release

On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 01:08:27AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 07/05/2013 12:58 AM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> >* David Weinehall <tao@debian.org>, 2013-07-04, 16:36:
> >>http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/25/273
> >
> >http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/30/100
> Could you be a bit more elaborate please? I don't think we should just
> spam this list by just sending mails containing URLs only.
> If you want to express your opinion, please say something.

OK, I'll instead quote what Linus wrote in the link I posted:

	Bzzt. Look closer.

	The Linux kernel has _always_ been under the GPL v2. Nothing
	else has ever been valid.

	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
	_explanatory_ text that talks about how to apply the license to
	your program, and it says that _if_ you want to accept any later
	versions of the GPL, you can state so in your source code.  The
	Linux kernel has never stated that in general. Some authors have
	chosen to use the suggested FSF boilerplate (including the "any
	later version" language), but the kernel in general never has.

	In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just
	the particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If
	you want to license a program under _any_ later version of the
	GPL, you have to state so explicitly. Linux never did.

	So: the extra blurb at the top of the COPYING file in the kernel
	source tree was added not to _change_ the license, but to _clarify_
	these points so that there wouldn't be any confusion. 

	The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else.
	Some individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the
	kernel in general. 

	And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's
	insane to require people to make their private signing keys
	available, for example.  I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the
	GPL v3 conversion is going to happen for the kernel, since I
	personally don't want to convert any of my code. 


	Conversion isn't going to happen.

So, that's Linus's stand on whether or not a GPLv3 kernel is feasible.
I hope this totally pointless thread can die now.  A GPLv3 only Debian
distribution is, in my opinion, about as useful as lobotomy performed
with a bazooka.

Regards, David Weinehall
 /) David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> /) Rime on my window           (\
//  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   //  Diamond-white roses of fire //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Beautiful hoar-frost       (/

Reply to: