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

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

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)

> > 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.
> Even if some Linux versions are deemed GPLv3-compatible they're probably
> too old for any realistic use now, so in that sense it doesn't matter.

Since this discussion took place in 2006, the Linux as a whole would
probably be too old to be intersting. However, there are big chunks of
current code having the 'or (at your option) any later version' clause,
and this software is definitely usable in GPLv3 sense. Not all Linux
kernel developers agreed with Linus decision at the time, Alan Cox being
one of them.

> Similar licensing issues apply to other projects too though, so you
> should try to avoid spreading incorrect information.

Thank you Uoti, information given should be correct, everything else is
to be treated as FUD.

Reply to: