Re: [PATCH] doc: add clarification of existing GPLv2 license terms to manual pages

[Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net>]

Petr Baudis wrote:
> Dear diary, on Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 02:58:50AM CET, I got a letter
> where Sam Vilain <sam.vilain@catalyst.net.nz> said that...
> 
>>The GPLv3 is less ambiguous on these things, but a decision on the use
>>of GPLv3 has already been deferred.
> 
> 
> Was it?
> 
> My fulltext =git mailbox search doesn't yield any matches at all.

I refer to this section from COPYING:

 Note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as this project
 is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
 v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

 HOWEVER, in order to allow a migration to GPLv3 if that seems like
 a good idea, I also ask that people involved with the project make
 their preferences known. In particular, if you trust me to make that
 decision, you might note so in your copyright message, ie something
 like

        This file is licensed under the GPL v2, or a later version
        at the discretion of Linus.

  might avoid issues. But we can also just decide to synchronize and
  contact all copyright holders on record if/when the occasion arises.

                        Linus Torvalds

This may become problematic if any of the copyright holders start
becoming Old Ones or otherwise not being contactable...

Sam.