[PATCH] clarify the GPL version of contributions by Jesper Juhl in CREDITS

[PATCH] clarify the GPL version of contributions by Jesper Juhl in CREDITS

[Jesper Juhl]

Just to make things clear in the light of recent discussions. 
Stuff I contribute to the Linux kernel are licensed under the terms of the 
GPL version 2.

Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
---

 CREDITS                       |    1 +
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/CREDITS b/CREDITS
index 273d72b..4a56f2a 100644
--- a/CREDITS
+++ b/CREDITS
@@ -1639,6 +1639,7 @@ N: Jesper Juhl
 E: jesper.juhl@gmail.com
 D: Various fixes, cleanups and minor features all over the tree.
 D: Wrote initial version of the hdaps driver (since passed on to others).
+D: All contributions are licensed under the terms of the GPL version 2.
 S: Lemnosvej 1, 3.tv
 S: 2300 Copenhagen S.
 S: Denmark

Re: [PATCH] clarify the GPL version of contributions by Jesper Juhl in CREDITS

[Paul Mundt]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 02:33:02AM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> Just to make things clear in the light of recent discussions. 
> Stuff I contribute to the Linux kernel are licensed under the terms of the 
> GPL version 2.
> 
> +D: All contributions are licensed under the terms of the GPL version 2.

I suspect this is the default for the vast majority of kernel developers.
Perhaps it's only worth special casing those that have an interest in
GPLv3, as the numbers are bound to be far lower -- if this sort of thing
is judged to be a good idea, that is (It's rather interesting to note
that the vast majority of GPLv3 advocates don't even have a single
changeset in the kernel, yet still feel that their input on kernel
licensing is somehow relevant or valid).

Re: [PATCH] clarify the GPL version of contributions by Jesper Juhl in CREDITS

[Jesper Juhl]

On 18/06/07, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 02:33:02AM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > Just to make things clear in the light of recent discussions.
> > Stuff I contribute to the Linux kernel are licensed under the terms of the
> > GPL version 2.
> >
> > +D: All contributions are licensed under the terms of the GPL version 2.
>
> I suspect this is the default for the vast majority of kernel developers.
> Perhaps it's only worth special casing those that have an interest in
> GPLv3, as the numbers are bound to be far lower -- if this sort of thing
> is judged to be a good idea, that is (It's rather interesting to note
> that the vast majority of GPLv3 advocates don't even have a single
> changeset in the kernel, yet still feel that their input on kernel
> licensing is somehow relevant or valid).
>
Explicitly marking the GPLv3 supporters would probably result in the
smaller set, but I just felt that it was important to make my own
position absolutely clear.

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html