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

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

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: pgpCkNOwhGXcz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: